Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles provide a structure for iterative testing of changes to improve quality of systems. The method is widely accepted in healthcare improvement; however there is little overarching evaluation of how the method is applied. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for assessing the quality of application of PDSA cycles and explores the consistency with which the method has been applied in peer-reviewed literature against this framework.Methods
NHS Evidence and Cochrane databases were searched by three independent reviewers. Empirical studies were included that reported application of the PDSA method in healthcare. Application of PDSA cycles was assessed against key features of the method, including documentation characteristics, use of iterative cycles, prediction-based testing of change, initial small-scale testing and use of data over time.Results
73 of 409 individual articles identified met the inclusion criteria. Of the 73 articles, 47 documented PDSA cycles in sufficient detail for full analysis against the whole framework. Many of these studies reported application of the PDSA method that failed to accord with primary features of the method. Less than 20% (14/73) fully documented the application of a sequence of iterative cycles. Furthermore, a lack of adherence to the notion of small-scale change is apparent and only 15% (7/47) reported the use of quantitative data at monthly or more frequent data intervals to inform progression of cycles.Discussion
To progress the development of the science of improvement, a greater understanding of the use of improvement methods, including PDSA, is essential to draw reliable conclusions about their effectiveness. This would be supported by the development of systematic and rigorous standards for the application and reporting of PDSAs.
SUBMITTER: Taylor MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3963536 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method is widely used in quality improvement (QI) strategies. However, previous studies have indicated that methodological problems are frequent in PDSA-based QI projects. Furthermore, it has been difficult to establish an association between the use of PDSA and improvements in clinical practices and patient outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to examine whether recently published PDSA-based QI projects show self-reported effects and are conducted according to key features of the method.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases. QI projects using PDSA published in peer-reviewed journals in 2015 and 2016 were included. Projects were assessed to determine the reported effects and the use of the following key methodological features; iterative cyclic method, continuous data collection, small-scale testing and use of a theoretical rationale.ResultsOf the 120 QI projects included, almost all reported improvement (98%). However, only 32 (27%) described a specific, quantitative aim and reached it. A total of 72 projects (60%) documented PDSA cycles sufficiently for inclusion in a full analysis of key features. Of these only three (4%) adhered to all four key methodological features.ConclusionEven though a majority of the QI projects reported improvements, the widespread challenges with low adherence to key methodological features in the individual projects pose a challenge for the legitimacy of PDSA-based QI. This review indicates that there is a continued need for improvement in quality improvement methodology.
| S-EPMC6778385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPractice facilitation (PF) is a promising but relatively new intervention supporting data-driven practice change. There is a need to better detail research-based facilitation methods, which must balance intervention fidelity and time restrictions with the flexibility required for the intervention. As part of a multi-level 4-armed cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT), 32 rural primary care practices received PF for 1 year. We evaluated the feasibility of having facilitators guide practices to perform 4 key driver domain activities, implemented as Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, to better understand facilitation "exposure." We describe the intervention and activity length such that our experiences may be useful to other PF research efforts.MethodsThirty-two practices serving rural patients involved in the Southeastern Collaboration to Improvement Blood Pressure Control engaged with a facilitator to develop and implement PDSAs nested within key drivers of change domains. Numbers of months practices worked on activities deemed most likely to be sustained were captured along with practice satisfaction data.ResultsAll practices engaged in at least 4 domain-level activities, and 59% of the PDSAs were active for at least 3 months. There was variation by domain in the average length of the PDSA activities. Ninety-seven percent (31 of 32) of practices recommended similarly structured facilitation services to other primary care practices, and 84% (27 of 32) noted substantive changes in their care processes.ConclusionIn this trial, it was feasible for PFs to engage practices in at least 4 Key Driver quality improvement activities within 1 year, which will inform PF methods and protocol development in future trials.
| S-EPMC8571730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDelphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice.Methodology and main findingThree electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978-2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility.ConclusionThe use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
| S-EPMC3111406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the use and utility of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research since 2005 and to determine if any particular feature of studies found led to greater data acquisition.DesignPRISMA compliant systematic review.ParticipantsAn extensive literature search was performed of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, psychINFO, BNI, AMED, HMIC and Health business elite databases from January 2005 to January 2013 using terms 'Freedom of information', 'Freedom of information act' and 'Freedom of information act 2000'. Papers were considered for publication if they described utilising the UK Freedom of information act to gather data for healthcare research. 16 articles met these criteria.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the number and characteristics of studies utilising the Freedom of Information Act to collect the data for healthcare research. Secondary outcome measures were any features that improved data acquisition rates (including to whom the request was made, the number of questions asked per request, etc.)Results16 articles described utilising the Freedom of Information Act for healthcare research, and these investigated a broad range of topics. The median number of requests made was 86 (range 1-172), the total number of requests was 1732. A total of 15 817 pieces of data were retrieved by all studies. The amount of data collected was defined as the number of questions asked multiplied by the number of full responses. A median of five questions were asked per study (range 5-6.5) and the overall response rate was 86%. The National Health Service litigation authority responded to 100% of requests, while Primary Care Trusts had the lowest response rate of 81% for healthcare bodies. A positive correlation between number of requests made and data obtained (0.508, p<0.05) and number of requests made and increased response rate (0.737, p<0.01), both reached the statistical significance.ConclusionsResearchers should make greater use of the Act to access the information they need that is not otherwise disclosed. We discuss the issues with the research utilising the Act and how future research of this type could be optimised.
| S-EPMC3845048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged.ResultsForty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n?=?12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made.ConclusionsPatient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care.RegistrationN/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).
| S-EPMC6060529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCultural competency is a recognized and popular approach to improving the provision of health care to racial/ethnic minority groups in the community with the aim of reducing racial/ethnic health disparities. The aim of this systematic review of reviews is to gather and synthesize existing reviews of studies in the field to form a comprehensive understanding of the current evidence base that can guide future interventions and research in the area.MethodsA systematic review of review articles published between January 2000 and June 2012 was conducted. Electronic databases (including Medline, Cinahl and PsycINFO), reference lists of articles, and key websites were searched. Reviews of cultural competency in health settings only were included. Each review was critically appraised by two authors using a study appraisal tool and were given a quality assessment rating of weak, moderate or strong.ResultsNineteen published reviews were identified. Reviews consisted of between 5 and 38 studies, included a variety of health care settings/contexts and a range of study types. There were three main categories of study outcomes: patient-related outcomes, provider-related outcomes, and health service access and utilization outcomes. The majority of reviews found moderate evidence of improvement in provider outcomes and health care access and utilization outcomes but weaker evidence for improvements in patient/client outcomes.ConclusionThis review of reviews indicates that there is some evidence that interventions to improve cultural competency can improve patient/client health outcomes. However, a lack of methodological rigor is common amongst the studies included in reviews and many of the studies rely on self-report, which is subject to a range of biases, while objective evidence of intervention effectiveness was rare. Future research should measure both healthcare provider and patient/client health outcomes, consider organizational factors, and utilize more rigorous study designs.
| S-EPMC3946184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have been conducted on the effect of interventions on the detection of depression in primary healthcare (PHC). Systematic reviews have also been done on the effectiveness of separate interventions. However, systematic reviews are not done on the comparative effectiveness of several interventions. This study, therefore, aimed at synthesizing the global evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve the detection of depression in PHC.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Global Index Medicus, African Index Medicus, and African Journals Online, from the inception of the databases to until the 4th week of April 2020. We also searched references of the included articles. We included randomized trials, cluster randomized trials, or quasi-experimental studies, which evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention to improve detection of depression in the PHC setting. Two of the review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project. The protocol for the review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020166291).ResultsOf 23,305 records identified, we included 58 articles in the review. Diverse types of interventions were evaluated to improve clinician diagnosis of depression in the PHC setting. Interventions related to implementation of guidelines, screening with feedback, educational interventions which incorporated active learning and clinical practice, and disclosure of screening results were found to be mostly effective. Interventions which combined education, screening, and feedback were particularly more effective. Most of the included studies were weak or moderate in their methodological quality.ConclusionsOur review indicates that implementation of a single type of intervention does not improve the detection of depression in PHC. Combining aspects of each type of intervention which are more effective may be useful. Education and training interventions which include more simulation and role playing are found to be effective over time. Most of the studies conducted in the area are from high-income countries and are weak in their methodological quality. There is need to conduct more number of studies in low-income settings.
| S-EPMC9951508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeVolumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for head and neck cancer is a complex process. While the lowest achievable dose for each individual organ-at-risk (OAR) is unknown a priori, artificial intelligence (AI) holds promise as a tool to accurately estimate the expected dose distribution for OARs. We prospectively investigated the benefits of incorporating an AI-based decision support tool (DST) into the clinical workflow to improve OAR sparing.Materials and methodsThe DST dose prediction model was based on 276 institutional VMAT plans. Under an IRB-approved prospective trial, the physician first generated a custom OAR directive for 50 consecutive patients (physician directive, PD). The DST then estimated OAR doses (AI directive, AD). For each OAR, the treating physician used the lower directive to form a hybrid directive (HD). The final plan metrics were compared to each directive. A dose difference of 3 Gray (Gy) was considered clinically significant.ResultsCompared to the AD and PD, the HD reduced OAR dose objectives by more than 3 Gy in 22% to 75% of cases, depending on OAR. The resulting clinical plan typically met these lower constraints and achieved mean dose reductions between 4.3 and 16 Gy over the PD, and 5.6 to 9.1 Gy over the AD alone. Dose metrics achieved using the HD were significantly better than institutional historical plans for most OARs and NRG constraints for all OARs.ConclusionsThe DST facilitated a significantly improved treatment directive across all OARs for this generalized H&N patient cohort, with neither the AD nor PD alone sufficient to optimally direct planning.
| S-EPMC8196054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Organisational culture is an anthropological metaphor used to inform research and consultancy and to explain organisational environments. In recent years, increasing emphasis has been placed on the need to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance. However, the precise function of organisational culture in healthcare policy often remains underspecified and the desirability and feasibility of strategies to be adopted have been called into question. The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of strategies to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance. METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Business and Management, EThOS, Index to Theses, Intute, HMIC, SIGLE, and Scopus until October 2009. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) was searched for related reviews. We also searched the reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews identified, and we contacted experts in the field for advice on further potential studies. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series (ITS) analyses). Studies could be set in any type of healthcare organisation in which strategies to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance were applied. Our main outcomes were objective measures of professional performance and patient outcome. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 4,239 records. After the full text assessment, two CBA studies were included in the review. They both assessed the impact of interventions aimed at changing organisational culture, but one evaluated the impact on work-related and personal outcomes while the other measured clinical outcomes. Both were at high risk of bias. Both reported positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Current available evidence does not identify any effective, generalisable strategies to change organisational culture. Healthcare organisations considering implementing interventions aimed at changing culture should seriously consider conducting an evaluation (using a robust design, e.g., ITS) to strengthen the evidence about this topic.
| S-EPMC3080823 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundInsomnia is common. However, no systematic reviews have examined the effect of exercise on patients with primary and secondary insomnia, defined as both sleep disruption and daytime impairment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effectiveness/efficacy of exercise in patients with insomnia.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of exercise on various sleep parameters in patients with insomnia. All participants were diagnosed with insomnia, using standard diagnostic criteria or predetermined criteria and standard measures. Data on outcome measures were subjected to meta-analyses using random-effects models. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to assess the quality of the individual studies and the body of evidence, respectively.ResultsWe included nine studies with a total of 557 participants. According to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (mean difference [MD], 2.87 points lower in the intervention group; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.95 points lower to 1.79 points lower; low-quality evidence) and the Insomnia Severity Index (MD, 3.22 points lower in the intervention group; 95% CI, 5.36 points lower to 1.07 points lower; very low-quality evidence), exercise was beneficial. However, exercise interventions were not associated with improved sleep efficiency (MD, 0.56% lower in the intervention group; 95% CI, 3.42% lower to 2.31% higher; moderate-quality evidence). Only four studies noted adverse effects. Most studies had a high or unclear risk of selection bias.DiscussionOur findings suggest that exercise can improve sleep quality without notable adverse effects. Most trials had a high risk of selection bias. Higher quality research is needed.
| S-EPMC6045928 | biostudies-literature