Literature DB >> 22612406

Explaining variation in perceived team effectiveness: results from eleven quality improvement collaboratives.

Mathilde M H Strating1, Anna P Nieboer.   

Abstract

AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: Explore effectiveness of 11 collaboratives focusing on 11 different topics, as perceived by local improvement teams and to explore associations with collaborative-, organisational- and team-level factors.
BACKGROUND: Evidence underlying the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives is inconclusive and few studies investigated determinants of implementation success. Moreover, most evaluation studies on quality improvement collaboratives are based on one specific topic or quality problem, making it hard to compare across collaboratives addressing different topics.
DESIGN: A multiple-case cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Quality improvement teams in 11 quality improvement collaboratives focusing on 11 different topics. Team members received a postal questionnaire at the end of each collaborative. Of the 283 improvement teams, 151 project leaders and 362 team members returned the questionnaire.
RESULTS: Analysis of variance revealed that teams varied widely on perceived effectiveness. Especially, members in the Prevention of Malnutrition and Prevention of Medication Errors collaboratives perceived a higher effectiveness than other groups. Multilevel regression analyses showed that educational level of professionals, innovation attributes, organisational support, innovative culture and commitment to change were all significant predictors of perceived effectiveness. In total, 27·9% of the individual-level variance, 57·6% of the team-level variance and 80% of the collaborative-level variance could be explained.
CONCLUSION: The innovation's attributes, organisational support, an innovative team culture and professionals' commitment to change are instrumental to perceived effectiveness. The results support the notion that a layered approach is necessary to achieve improvements in quality of care and provides further insight in the determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Understanding which factors enhance the impact of quality improvement initiatives can help professionals to achieve breakthrough improvement in care delivery to patients on a wide variety of quality problems.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22612406     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04120.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Nurs        ISSN: 0962-1067            Impact factor:   3.036


  9 in total

1.  Quality improvement collaboratives and the wisdom of crowds: spread explained by perceived success at group level.

Authors:  Michel L A Dückers; Peter P Groenewegen; Cordula Wagner
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 7.327

2.  Improving documentation of clinical care within a clinical information network: an essential initial step in efforts to understand and improve care in Kenyan hospitals.

Authors:  Timothy Tuti; Michael Bitok; Lucas Malla; Chris Paton; Naomi Muinga; David Gathara; Susan Gachau; George Mbevi; Wycliffe Nyachiro; Morris Ogero; Thomas Julius; Grace Irimu; Mike English
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2016-05-24

3.  Ontario's emergency department process improvement program: the experience of implementation.

Authors:  Leahora Rotteau; Fiona Webster; Erin Salkeld; Chelsea Hellings; Astrid Guttmann; Marian J Vermeulen; Robert S Bell; Merrick Zwarenstein; Brian H Rowe; Amit Nigam; Michael J Schull
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  Barriers and facilitators of Canadian quality and safety teams: a mixed-methods study exploring the views of health care leaders.

Authors:  Deborah E White; Jill M Norris; Karen Jackson; Farah Khandwala
Journal:  J Healthc Leadersh       Date:  2016-12-12

5.  Evaluating implementation and impact of a provincial quality improvement collaborative for the management of chronic diseases in primary care: the COMPAS+ study protocol.

Authors:  Brigitte Vachon; Isabelle Gaboury; Matthew Menear; Marie-Pascale Pomey; Denis Roy; Lise Houle; Mylaine Breton; Arnaud Duhoux; Valérie Émond; Guylaine Giasson; Janusz Kaczorowski; France Légaré; Marie-Thérèse Lussier; Pierre Pluye; Alain Vanasse
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  The LEAP Program: Quality Improvement Training to Address Team Readiness Gaps Identified by Implementation Science Findings.

Authors:  Laura J Damschroder; Nicholas R Yankey; Claire H Robinson; Michelle B Freitag; Jennifer A Burns; Susan D Raffa; Julie C Lowery
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Implementation of a Web-Based Tool for Shared Decision-making in Lung Cancer Screening: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Evaluation.

Authors:  Julie Lowery; Angela R Larkin; Sarah E Skurla; Tanner J Caverly; Angela Fagerlin; Renda S Wiener
Journal:  JMIR Hum Factors       Date:  2022-04-01

8.  How guiding coalitions promote positive culture change in hospitals: a longitudinal mixed methods interventional study.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Bradley; Amanda L Brewster; Zahirah McNatt; Erika L Linnander; Emily Cherlin; Heather Fosburgh; Henry H Ting; Leslie A Curry
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 7.035

9.  Saving 20 000 Days and Beyond: a realist evaluation of two quality improvement campaigns to manage hospital demand in a New Zealand District Health Board.

Authors:  Lesley Middleton; Diana Dowdle; Luis Villa; Jonathon Gray; Jacqueline Cumming
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2019-12-19
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.