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 has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global pandemic. 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 2022 the database contains 14,778 projects, funded by 306 funders, taking place across 157 countries representing an investment of at least $5.7 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus and the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery. It is being used by the WHO, governments and further 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 are presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this version seven analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version six) 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:Background and aimsInvolving research users in collaborative research approaches may increase the relevance and utility of research findings. Our primary objectives were to (i) identify and describe characteristics of Canadian federally and provincially funded health research projects that included research users and were funded between 2011 and 2019; (ii) explore changes over time; and (iii) compare characteristics between funder required and optional partnerships.MethodsRetrospective analysis. Inclusion criteria were projects that included research users. We analyzed publicly available project variables, and coded field and type of research using established classification systems. We summarized data with descriptive statistics and compared variables across three funding year blocks and partnership requirement status.ResultsWe identified 1153 partnered health research projects, representing 137 fields of research and 37 types of research categories. Most projects included a required partnership (80%) and fell into health and social care services research (66%). Project length and funding amount increased from average of 24.8 months and $266 248 CAD in 2011-2013 to 31.6 months and $438 766 CAD in 2017-2019. There were significantly fewer required partnerships in 2017-2019.ConclusionsBetween 2011 and 2019 Canadian federally and provincially funded partnered health research reflected primarily care services research across many fields. The observed breadth suggests that partnered health research approaches are applicable in many fields of research. Additional work to support partnered research across all types of health research (especially biomedical research) is warranted. The administration of larger grants that are funded for longer time periods may address previously identified concerns among research teams engaging in partnered research but may mean that fewer teams receive funding and risk delaying responding to time-sensitive data needs for users. Our process and findings can be used as a starting point for international comparison.

Project description:BackgroundThe Safer Baby Bundle (SBB) aimed to reduce stillbirth rates in Australia through improving pregnancy care across five elements; smoking cessation, fetal growth restriction (FGR), decreased fetal movements (DFM), side sleeping in late pregnancy and decision making around timing of birth. We assessed experiences of women and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with antenatal care practices around the five elements.MethodsA pre-post study design using online surveys was employed to assess change in HCPs awareness, knowledge, and frequency of performing recommended practices (22 in total) and women's experiences of care received related to reducing their chance of stillbirth. Women who had received antenatal care and HCPs (midwives and doctors) at services participating in the SBB implementation program in two Australian states were invited to participate. Surveys were distributed over January to July 2020 (pre) and August to December 2022 (post). Comparison of pre-post responses was undertaken using Fisher's exact, Pearson's chi-squared or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.Results1,225 women (pre-1096/post-129) and 1,415 HCPs (pre-1148/post-267, ≥ 83% midwives) completed the surveys. The frequency of HCPs performing best practice 'all the time' significantly improved post-SBB implementation across all elements including providing advice to women on side sleeping (20.4-79.4%, p < 0.001) and benefits of smoking cessation (54.5-74.5%, p < 0.001), provision of DFM brochure (43.2-85.1%, p < 0.001), risk assessments for FGR (59.2-84.1%, p < 0.001) and stillbirth (44.5-73.2%, p < 0.001). Practices around smoking cessation in general showed less improvement e.g. using the 'Ask, Advise and Help' brief advice model at each visit (15.6-20.3%, p = 0.088). Post-implementation more women recalled conversations about stillbirth and risk reduction (32.2-50.4%, p < 0.001) and most HCPs reported including these conversations in their routine care (35.1-83.0%, p < 0.001). Most HCPs agreed that the SBB had become part of their routine practice (85.0%).ConclusionsImplementation of the SBB was associated with improvements in practice across all targeted elements of care in stillbirth prevention including conversations with women around stillbirth risk reduction. Further consideration is needed around strategies to increase uptake of practices that were more resistant to change such as smoking cessation support.Trial registrationThe Safer Baby Bundle Study was retrospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry database, ACTRN12619001777189, date assigned 16/12/2019.

Project description:BackgroundActive engagement in research by healthcare organisations and clinicians is associated with improvements in healthcare performance. Barriers to research engagement by clinician allied health (AH) professionals include competing priorities from high clinical workloads, lack of research skills and confidence, and lack of supportive research relationships. Collaboration with universities on joint clinical research projects is well recognised as a means of building health service research capacity. Research projects undertaken by students as part of their qualifying degree represent one such opportunity. However, there are few reports evaluating these collaborations from the health service perspective.MethodsA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to explore the experiences of AH professionals in the co-supervision of students completing research placements as part of their professional degree course.ResultsFourteen health service employees from six allied health disciplines described collaborations on research projects with 24 students from four different universities. Student placements and projects varied widely in length of placement, extent of collaboration, supervision structure and study design. Three overarching themes were identified in the AH professional co-supervision experience: 1) Professional growth; 2) Mismatch with expectations; and 3) Focus on the student. Project outcomes were categorised from the health system perspective. These were 1) Healthcare performance improvements, including local increases in staff clinical practice knowledge and wider contributions to the evidence base; 2) Research capacity gains within the health service, including research knowledge and skill development, collaborative linkages and opportunity for future research; and 3) Staff-centred outcomes including increased job satisfaction.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential for AH professional supervision of students on research placements to contribute to healthcare performance improvements and research capacity gains within health services, alongside providing personal benefits for the AH professionals involved. Early consultation with a health service-employed research specialist may support health professional and student learning, team collaboration and project coordination for these student projects.

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