Simon Kitto1, Joanne Goldman, Edward Etchells, Ivan Silver, Jennifer Peller, Joan Sargeant, Scott Reeves, Mary Bell. 1. Dr. Kitto is associate professor, Department of Innovation in Medical Education, and director of research, Office of Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Goldman is research associate, Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Etchells is associate professor, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, and medical director of information services, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Silver is vice president of education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Ms. Peller was research associate, Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, at the time this study was done. Dr. Sargeant is professor and head, Division of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Dr. Reeves is professor in interprofessional research, Faculty of Health, Social Care, and Education, Kingston University/St. George's, University of London, London, England. Dr. Bell is associate professor, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Quality improvement/patient safety (QI/PS) and continuing education (CE) efforts have a common aim to improve health care outcomes. Yet, minimal collaboration occurs between them. This lack of integration can be problematic given the finite resources available and the potential value of approaching health care challenges from different perspectives. The authors conducted an exploratory study to understand Canadian leaders' perceptions and experiences with both their own and the other domain, with the aim of increasing their understanding of the boundaries and opportunities for collaborative approaches to improving health care. METHOD: The authors conducted this study in 2011-2012 using a qualitative interpretivist framework to guide the collection and analysis of data from semistructured interviews. They used criterion-based, maximum variation, and snowball sampling to select 15 leaders from the domains of QI/PS and CE to interview. They transcribed verbatim the interviews and coded the transcripts using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants described the relationship between QI/PS and CE in four ways: (1) the separation of QI/PS and CE as distinct interventions, (2) (re)positioning CE in QI/PS activities, (3) (re)positioning QI/PS in CE activities, and (4) further integrating QI/PS and CE. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for how leaders in QI/PS and CE should mindfully and strategically negotiate their relationship to ensure the relevance and effectiveness of their domain's activities.
PURPOSE: Quality improvement/patient safety (QI/PS) and continuing education (CE) efforts have a common aim to improve health care outcomes. Yet, minimal collaboration occurs between them. This lack of integration can be problematic given the finite resources available and the potential value of approaching health care challenges from different perspectives. The authors conducted an exploratory study to understand Canadian leaders' perceptions and experiences with both their own and the other domain, with the aim of increasing their understanding of the boundaries and opportunities for collaborative approaches to improving health care. METHOD: The authors conducted this study in 2011-2012 using a qualitative interpretivist framework to guide the collection and analysis of data from semistructured interviews. They used criterion-based, maximum variation, and snowball sampling to select 15 leaders from the domains of QI/PS and CE to interview. They transcribed verbatim the interviews and coded the transcripts using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS:Participants described the relationship between QI/PS and CE in four ways: (1) the separation of QI/PS and CE as distinct interventions, (2) (re)positioning CE in QI/PS activities, (3) (re)positioning QI/PS in CE activities, and (4) further integrating QI/PS and CE. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for how leaders in QI/PS and CE should mindfully and strategically negotiate their relationship to ensure the relevance and effectiveness of their domain's activities.