Literature DB >> 31446424

A mixed-methods study of challenges experienced by clinical teams in measuring improvement.

Thomas Woodcock1, Elisa G Liberati2, Mary Dixon-Woods3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Measurement is an indispensable element of most quality improvement (QI) projects, but it is undertaken to variable standards. We aimed to characterise challenges faced by clinical teams in undertaking measurement in the context of a safety QI programme that encouraged local selection of measures.
METHODS: Drawing on an independent evaluation of a multisite improvement programme (Safer Clinical Systems), we combined a qualitative study of participating teams' experiences and perceptions of measurement with expert review of measurement plans and analysis of data collected for the programme. Multidisciplinary teams of frontline clinicians at nine UK NHS sites took part across the two phases of the programme between 2011 and 2016.
RESULTS: Developing and implementing a measurement plan against which to assess their improvement goals was an arduous task for participating sites. The operational definitions of the measures that they selected were often imprecise or missed important details. Some measures used by the teams were not logically linked to the improvement actions they implemented. Regardless of the specific type of data used (routinely collected or selected ex novo), the burdensome nature of data collection was underestimated. Problems also emerged in identifying and using suitable analytical approaches.
CONCLUSION: Measurement is a highly technical task requiring a degree of expertise. Simply leveraging individual clinicians' motivation is unlikely to defeat the persistent difficulties experienced by clinical teams when attempting to measure their improvement efforts. We suggest that more structural initiatives and broader capability-building programmes should be pursued by the professional community. Improving access to, and ability to use repositories of validated measures, and increasing transparency in reporting measurement attempts, is likely to be helpful. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  evaluation methodology; quality improvement; quality measurement

Year:  2019        PMID: 31446424      PMCID: PMC7841469          DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-009048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  19 in total

1.  Accountability measures--using measurement to promote quality improvement.

Authors:  Mark R Chassin; Jerod M Loeb; Stephen P Schmaltz; Robert M Wachter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Data quality bias: an underrecognized source of misclassification in pay-for-performance reporting?

Authors:  Darcey D Terris; David G Litaker
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.926

3.  Improving data quality control in quality improvement projects.

Authors:  Dale M Needham; David J Sinopoli; Victor D Dinglas; Sean M Berenholtz; Radha Korupolu; Sam R Watson; Lisa Lubomski; Christine Goeschel; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 2.038

4.  Does quality improvement improve quality?

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Graham P Martin
Journal:  Future Hosp J       Date:  2016-10

5.  Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Kathy Charmaz Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Sage 224 £19.99 0761973532 0761973532 [Formula: see text].

Authors: 
Journal:  Nurse Res       Date:  2006-07-01

6.  What counts? An ethnographic study of infection data reported to a patient safety program.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Myles Leslie; Julian Bion; Carolyn Tarrant
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.911

7.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.

Authors:  Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 7.327

8.  A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care.

Authors:  Carl May
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Julie E Reed; Cathy Howe; Cathal Doyle; Derek Bell
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 8.775

10.  Explaining Matching Michigan: an ethnographic study of a patient safety program.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Myles Leslie; Carolyn Tarrant; Julian Bion
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 7.327

View more
  6 in total

1.  Who is Responsible for Discharge Education of Patients? A Multi-Institutional Survey of Internal Medicine Residents.

Authors:  Shreya P Trivedi; Zoe Kopp; Paul N Williams; Derek Hupp; Nick Gowen; Leora I Horwitz; Mark D Schwartz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Patient feedback for safety improvement in primary care: results from a feasibility study.

Authors:  Andrea L Hernan; Sally J Giles; Hannah Beks; Kevin McNamara; Kate Kloot; Marley J Binder; Vincent Versace
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-21       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  How to improve healthcare improvement-an essay by Mary Dixon-Woods.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-10-01

4.  A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects.

Authors:  Thomas Woodcock; Yewande Adeleke; Christine Goeschel; Peter Pronovost; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Qualitative evaluation of a mandatory provincial programme auditing emergency department return visits.

Authors:  Lucas B Chartier; Hanna Jalali; M Bianca Seaton; Howard Ovens; Bjug Borgundvaag; Shelley L McLeod; Katie N Dainty; Olivia Ostrow
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Scale-up of ABC care bundle for intracerebral haemorrhage across two hyperacute stroke units in one region in England: a mixed methods evaluation of a quality improvement project.

Authors:  Lisa Brunton; Camilla Sammut-Powell; Emily Birleson; Ruth Boaden; Sarah E Knowles; Clare McQuaker; Stephen Cross; Natalie Greaves; Kyriaki Paroutoglou; Omran Alzouabi; Hiren C Patel; Appukuttan Suman; Khalil Kawafi; Adrian R Parry-Jones
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2022-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.