Dataset Information

Measuring team factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Measuring team factors in evaluations of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) may provide important information for enhancing CQI processes and outcomes; however, the large number of potentially relevant factors and associated measurement instruments makes inclusion of such measures challenging. This review aims to provide guidance on the selection of instruments for measuring team-level factors by systematically collating, categorizing, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments.

Methods

Data sources

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments; reference lists of systematic reviews; and citations and references of the main report of instruments.

Study selection

To determine the scope of the review, we developed and used a conceptual framework designed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). We included papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring factors relevant to teamwork. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarizing and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorized using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care.

Results

We identified 192 potentially relevant instruments, 170 of which were analyzed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-one instruments measured constructs relevant to CQI teams in primary care, with content covering teamwork context (45 instruments measured enabling conditions or attitudes to teamwork), team process (57 instruments measured teamwork behaviors), and team outcomes (59 instruments measured perceptions of the team or its effectiveness). Forty instruments were included for full review, many with a strong theoretical basis. Evidence supporting measurement properties was limited.

Conclusions

Existing instruments cover many of the factors hypothesized to contribute to QI success. With further testing, use of these instruments measuring team factors in evaluations could aid our understanding of the influence of teamwork on CQI outcomes. Greater consistency in the factors measured and choice of measurement instruments is required to enable synthesis of findings for informing policy and practice.

SUBMITTER: Brennan SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3602018 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring team factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

Brennan Sue E SE Bosch Marije M Buchan Heather H Green Sally E SE

Implementation science : IS 20130214

<h4>Background</h4>Measuring team factors in evaluations of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) may provide important information for enhancing CQI processes and outcomes; however, the large number of potentially relevant factors and associated measurement instruments makes inclusion of such measures challenging. This review aims to provide guidance on the selection of instruments for measuring team-level factors by systematically collating, categorizing, and reviewing quantitative self-report ...[more]

PMID: 23410500

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are widely used in healthcare; however, the effectiveness of the methods is variable, and evidence about the extent to which contextual and other factors modify effects is limited. Investigating the relationship between these factors and CQI outcomes poses challenges for those evaluating CQI, among the most complex of which relate to the measurement of modifying factors. We aimed to provide guidance to support the selection of measurement instruments by systematically collating, categorising, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments. METHODS: DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments, reference lists of systematic reviews, and citations and references of the main report of instruments. STUDY SELECTION: The scope of the review was determined by a conceptual framework developed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). Papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring a construct encompassed by the framework were included. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarising and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorised using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care. RESULTS: We identified 186 potentially relevant instruments, 152 of which were analysed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-four instruments measured constructs relevant to primary care, with content measuring CQI implementation and use (19 instruments), organizational context (51 instruments), and individual factors (21 instruments). Forty-one instruments were included for full review. Development methods were often pragmatic, rather than systematic and theory-based, and evidence supporting measurement properties was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Many instruments are available for evaluating CQI, but most require further use and testing to establish their measurement properties. Further development and use of these measures in evaluations should increase the contribution made by individual studies to our understanding of CQI and enhance our ability to synthesise evidence for informing policy and practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe science of effective teams is well documented; far less is known, however, about how specific team configurations may impact primary care team effectiveness. Further, teams experiencing frequent personnel changes (perhaps as a consequence of poor implementation) may have difficulty delivering effective, continuous, well-coordinated care. This study aims to examine the extent to which primary care clinics in the Veterans Health Administration have implemented team configurations consistent with recommendations based on the Patient-Centered Medical Home model and the extent to which adherence to said recommendations, team stability, and role stability impact healthcare quality. Specifically, we expect to find better clinical outcomes in teams that adhere to recommended team configurations, teams whose membership and configuration are more stable over time, and teams whose clinical manager role is more stable over time.Methods/designWe will employ a combination of social network analysis and multilevel modeling to conduct a database review of variables extracted from the Veterans Health Administration's Team Assignments Report (TAR) (one of the largest, most diverse existing national samples of primary care teams (nteams > 7000)), as well as other employee and clinical data sources. To ensure the examination of appropriate clinical outcomes, we will enlist a team of subject matter experts to select a concise set of clear, prioritized primary care performance metrics. We will accomplish this using the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System, an evidence-based methodology for developing and implementing performance measurement.DiscussionWe are unaware of other studies of healthcare teams that consider team size, composition, and configuration longitudinally or with sample sizes of this magnitude. Results from this study can inform primary care team implementation policy and practice in both private- and public-sector clinics, such that teams are configured optimally, with adequate staffing, and the right mix of roles within the team.Trial registrationNot applicable-this study does not involve interventions on human participants.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives in primary care are effective at improving uptake of evidence based guidelines, but are difficult to implement and sustain. In Australia meso-level health organisations such as Primary health care Organisations (PHCO) offer new opportunities to implement area-wide QI programs. This study sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of an existing Australian QI program and to identify strategic directions that PHCOs can use in the ongoing development of QI in this environment. METHODS:Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 purposively selected program staff and participants from the Australian Primary Care Collaborative (APCC) QI program. Interviewees included seven people involved in design, administration and implementation of the APCC program and eight primary care providers (seven General Practitioners (GPs) and one practice nurse) who had participated in the program from 2004 to 2014. Interviewees were asked to describe their experience of the program and reflect on what enabled or impeded its implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and iteratively analysed, with early analysis informing subsequent interviews. Identified themes and their implications were reviewed by a GP expert reference group. RESULTS:Implementation enablers and barriers were grouped into five thematic areas: (1) leadership, particularly the identification and utilisation of change champions; (2) organisational culture that supports quality improvement; (3) funding incentives that support a culture of quality and innovation; (4) access to and use of accurate data; and 5) design and utilisation of clinical systems that enable and support these issues. In all of these areas, the active involvement of an overarching external support organisation was considered a key ingredient to successful implementation. CONCLUSION:There are substantial opportunities for PHCOs to play a pivotal role in QI implementation in Australia and internationally. In developing QI programs and policies, such organisations ought to invest their efforts in: (1) identifying and mentoring local leaders; (2) fostering QI culture via development of local peer networks; (3) developing and advocating for alternative funding models to support and incentivise these activities; (4) investing in data and audit tool infrastructure; and (5) facilitation of systems implementation within primary care practices.

Project description:Engaging health care staff in new quality improvement programs is challenging.We developed 2 virtual patient (VP) avatars in the context of a clinic-level quality improvement program. We sought to determine differences in preferences for VPs and the perceived influence of interacting with the VP on clinical staff engagement with the quality improvement program.Using a participatory design approach, we developed an older male smoker VP and a younger female smoker VP. The older male smoker was described as a patient with cardiovascular disease and was ethnically ambiguous. The female patient was younger and was worried about the impact of smoking on her pregnancy. Clinical staff were allowed to choose the VP they preferred, and the more they engaged with the VP, the more likely the VP was to quit smoking and become healthier. We deployed the VP within the context of a quality improvement program designed to encourage clinical staff to refer their patients who smoke to a patient-centered Web-assisted tobacco intervention. To evaluate the VPs, we used quantitative analyses using multivariate models of provider and practice characteristics and VP characteristic preference and analyses of a brief survey of positive deviants (clinical staff in practices with high rates of encouraging patients to use the quit smoking innovation).A total of 146 clinical staff from 76 primary care practices interacted with the VPs. Clinic staff included medical providers (35/146, 24.0%), nurse professionals (19/146, 13.0%), primary care technicians (5/146, 3.4%), managerial staff (67/146, 45.9%), and receptionists (20/146, 13.7%). Medical staff were mostly male, and other roles were mostly female. Medical providers (OR 0.031; CI 0.003-0.281; P=.002) and younger staff (OR 0.411; CI 0.177-0.952; P=.038) were less likely to choose the younger, female VP when controlling for all other characteristics. VP preference did not influence online patient referrals by staff. In high-performing practices that referred 20 or more smokers to the ePortal (13/76), the majority of clinic staff were motivated by or liked the virtual patient (20/26, 77%).Medical providers are more likely motivated by VPs that are similar to their patient population, while nurses and other staff may prefer avatars that are more similar to them.

Dataset Information

Measuring team factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

Background

Methods

Data sources

Study selection

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Measuring team factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets