OBJECTIVE: Our purposes were: (1) to describe how 14 multi-stakeholder alliances participating in the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative approached the charge of improving healthcare delivery at the community level between 2006 and 2010; and (2) to offer insights to policy makers and program planners seeking to promote or establish community-wide quality improvement (QI). STUDY DESIGN: This was a qualitative study. METHODS: A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were conducted with AF4Q alliance leaders between 2006 and 2010, and an iterative coding process was used to identify salient themes. Program documents supplemented the interview data and were used to develop an inventory of the alliances' QI activities using the Leatherman and Sutherland taxonomy of quality-enhancing interventions. RESULTS: Alliances spent years planning their QI approaches and activities. Initial selection of QI activities was driven by the availability of local expertise and resources, rather than alignment with a community-wide vision for quality. Alliances were just as likely to rely on local partners to lead QI activities as they were to establish their own activities. The most commonly adopted QI activities were collaboratives aimed at producing organizational-level changes. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and program planners seeking to promote community-wide QI should consider developing clear expectations, offering technical assistance at the start of the program, providing information on the evidence base for QI activities, and highlighting additional funding opportunities that could support QI activities. Alliances may need a stronger push to move beyond coordinated, organizational-level activities to more community-focused, cross-organizational QI activities.
OBJECTIVE: Our purposes were: (1) to describe how 14 multi-stakeholder alliances participating in the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative approached the charge of improving healthcare delivery at the community level between 2006 and 2010; and (2) to offer insights to policy makers and program planners seeking to promote or establish community-wide quality improvement (QI). STUDY DESIGN: This was a qualitative study. METHODS: A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were conducted with AF4Q alliance leaders between 2006 and 2010, and an iterative coding process was used to identify salient themes. Program documents supplemented the interview data and were used to develop an inventory of the alliances' QI activities using the Leatherman and Sutherland taxonomy of quality-enhancing interventions. RESULTS: Alliances spent years planning their QI approaches and activities. Initial selection of QI activities was driven by the availability of local expertise and resources, rather than alignment with a community-wide vision for quality. Alliances were just as likely to rely on local partners to lead QI activities as they were to establish their own activities. The most commonly adopted QI activities were collaboratives aimed at producing organizational-level changes. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and program planners seeking to promote community-wide QI should consider developing clear expectations, offering technical assistance at the start of the program, providing information on the evidence base for QI activities, and highlighting additional funding opportunities that could support QI activities. Alliances may need a stronger push to move beyond coordinated, organizational-level activities to more community-focused, cross-organizational QI activities.