Dataset Information

Experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded projects that implemented practices for safer patient care.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To synthesize lessons learned from the experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded patient safety projects in implementing safe practices.

Data sources

Self-reported data from individual and group interviews with Original, Challenge, and Partnerships in Implementing Patient Safety (PIPS) grantees, from 2003 to 2006.

Study design

Interviews with three grantee groups (n=60 total) implementing safe practice projects, with comparisons on factors influencing project implementation and sustainability.

Data collection

Semi-structured protocols contained open-ended questions on lessons learned and more structured questions on factors associated with project implementation and sustainability.

Principal findings

The grantees shared common experiences, frequently identifying lessons learned regarding structural components needing to be in place before implementation, components of the implementation process, components of interventions' results needed for sustainability, changes in timelines or activities, unanticipated issues, and staff acceptance/adoption. Also, fewer Original grants had many of the factors related project to implementation/sustainability than the PIPS or Challenge grantees had.

Conclusions

Although much of what was reported seemed like common sense, surprisingly few projects actually planned for or expected many of the barriers or facilitators they experienced during their project implementation. Others implementing practice improvements likely will share the experiences and issues identified by these implementation projects and can learn from their lessons.

SUBMITTER: Taylor SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2677034 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded projects that implemented practices for safer patient care.

Taylor Stephanie L SL Ridgely M Susan MS Greenberg Michael D MD Sorbero Melony E S ME Teleki Stephanie S SS Damberg Cheryl L CL Farley Donna O DO

Health services research 20090401 2 Pt 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To synthesize lessons learned from the experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded patient safety projects in implementing safe practices.<h4>Data sources</h4>Self-reported data from individual and group interviews with Original, Challenge, and Partnerships in Implementing Patient Safety (PIPS) grantees, from 2003 to 2006.<h4>Study design</h4>Interviews with three grantee groups (n=60 total) implementing safe practice projects, with comparisons on factors ...[more]

PMID: 21456110

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There is however a need for greater coordination, with limited resources and the shifting global nature of the pandemic resulting in a proliferation of research projects underpowered and unable to achieve their aims. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15 th January 2021 the database contains 7,778 projects, funded by 101 funders, taking place across 136 countries representing an investment of at least $3.8 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus. It is being used by the WHO, governments and multi-lateral policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis will be presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this version three analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (three months after version two) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: As the global funding response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review helps both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to areas where there is continued unmet research need.

Project description:BackgroundGetting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, world-wide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers' experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services.MethodsInterviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis.ResultsCollaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or 'student researchers' were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner's and researcher's contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management.ConclusionsCollaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with on-going organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.

Dataset Information

Experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded projects that implemented practices for safer patient care.

Objectives

Data sources

Study design

Data collection

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded projects that implemented practices for safer patient care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets