Dataset Information

Factors associated with the impact of quality improvement collaboratives in mental healthcare: an exploratory study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together groups of healthcare professionals to work in a structured manner to improve the quality of healthcare delivery within particular domains. We explored which characteristics of the composition, participation, functioning, and organization of these collaboratives related to changes in the healthcare for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, or schizophrenia. METHODS: We studied three QICs involving 29 quality improvement (QI) teams representing a number of mental healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. The aims of the three QICs were the implementation of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in the domains of anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia, respectively. We used eight performance indicators to assess the impact of the QI teams on self-reported patient outcomes and process of care outcomes for 1,346 patients. The QI team members completed a questionnaire on the characteristics of the composition, participation in a national program, functioning, and organizational context for their teams. It was expected that an association would be found between these team characteristics and the quality of care for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia. RESULTS: No consistent patterns of association emerged. Theory-based factors did not perform better than practice-based factors. However, QI teams that received support from their management and both active and inspirational team leadership showed better results. Rather surprisingly, a lower average level of education among the team members was associated with better results, although less consistently than the management and leadership characteristics. Team views with regard to the QI goals of the team and attitudes towards multidisciplinary practice guidelines did not correlate with team success. CONCLUSIONS: No general conclusions about the impact of the characteristics of QI teams on the quality of healthcare can be drawn, but support of the management and active, inspirational team leadership appear to be important. Not only patient outcomes but also the performance indicators of monitoring and screening/assessment showed improvement in many but not all of the QI teams with such characteristics. More studies are needed to identify factors associated with the impact of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in mental healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Versteeg MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3313876 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors associated with the impact of quality improvement collaboratives in mental healthcare: an exploratory study.

Versteeg Marleen H MH Laurant Miranda G H MG Franx Gerdien C GC Jacobs Annelies J AJ Wensing Michel J P MJ

Implementation science : IS 20120109

<h4>Background</h4>Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together groups of healthcare professionals to work in a structured manner to improve the quality of healthcare delivery within particular domains. We explored which characteristics of the composition, participation, functioning, and organization of these collaboratives related to changes in the healthcare for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, or schizophrenia.<h4>Methods</h4>We studied three QICs involving 29 qual ...[more]

PMID: 22230594

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare. METHODS:Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute 'three by three dominance matrix tool' to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases. RESULTS:Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself. CONCLUSIONS:Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018107417.

Project description:Approximately one in four adults in the UK will experience a mental health difficulty at some point in their life. This figure is approximately 400 million people worldwide.[1] Depression alone is currently estimated to cost the UK 1.7% of GDP and is one of the largest causes of ill health in the world.[2] For conditions like psychosis, evidence tells us that people have poorer quality of life outcomes, are more likely to die early, become obese, smoke, be unemployed, and have long term physical conditions than average.[3] People's social situation is also likely to be more complex, with housing needs, social isolation, stigma, and poverty.[4] All of these factors can make it hard for a person with a long-term mental health condition, or those supporting them, to hold onto a sense of hope that positive change is possible or that "recovery" towards a life that holds optimum meaning to them is achievable. An innovative "pop up" Recovery College model was co-produced, delivered, and evaluated by a team of people with lived experience of mental health difficulties, known as peer trainers. The Recovery College offered courses containing the best evidence-based knowledge about recovery in mental health, self-care and self-management. Each learning session included theory, personal testament from peer trainers, and volunteers and demonstrations of practical self-care skills and techniques. The courses were open to people experiencing mental health difficulties, their families, friends, and professionals. After the college course finished each student was offered up to three individual coaching sessions to help support putting the lessons learnt from the college into practice. The project aimed to test whether this innovative educational and coaching model could offer hope, knowledge and practical skills in self-management to support resilience and recovery. The project was underpinned by quality improvement methodologies to develop, deliver, and refine the model.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Quality improvement collaboratives are used to improve healthcare by various organizations. Despite their popularity literature shows mixed results on their effectiveness. A quality improvement collaborative can be seen as a temporary learning organization in which knowledge about improvement themes and methods is exchanged. In this research we studied: Does the learning approach of a quality improvement collaborative match the learning styles preferences of the individual participants and how does that affect the learning process of participants? METHODS:This research used a mixed methods design combining a validated learning style questionnaire with data collected in the tradition of action research methodology to study two Dutch quality improvement collaboratives. The questionnaire is based on the learning style model of Ruijters and Simons, distinguishing five learning style preferences: Acquisition of knowledge, Apperception from others, Discovery of new insights, Exercising in fictitious situations and Participation with others. RESULTS:The most preferred learning styles of the participants were Discovery and Participation. The learning style Acquisition was moderately preferred and Apperception and Exercising were least preferred. The educational components of the quality improvement collaboratives studied (national conferences, half-day learning sessions, faculty site visits and use of an online tool) were predominantly associated with the learning styles Acquisition and Apperception. We observed a decrease in attendance to the learning activities and non-conformance with the standardized set goals and approaches. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that the participants' satisfaction with the offered learning approach changed over time. The lacking match between these learning style preferences and the learning approach in the educational components of the quality improvement collaboratives studied might be the reason why the participants felt they did not gain new insights and therefore ceased their participation in the collaborative. This study provides guidance for future organisers and participants of quality improvement collaboratives about which learning approaches will best suit the participants and enhance improvement work.

Dataset Information

Factors associated with the impact of quality improvement collaboratives in mental healthcare: an exploratory study.

Publications

Factors associated with the impact of quality improvement collaboratives in mental healthcare: an exploratory study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets