Dataset Information

An intraorganizational model for developing and spreading quality improvement innovations.

ABSTRACT: Recent policy reforms encourage quality improvement (QI) innovations in primary care, but practitioners lack clear guidance regarding spread inside organizations.We designed this study to identify how large organizations can facilitate intraorganizational spread of QI innovations.We conducted ethnographic observation and interviews in a large, multispecialty, community-based medical group that implemented three QI innovations across 10 primary care sites using a new method for intraorganizational process development and spread. We compared quantitative outcomes achieved through the group's traditional versus new method, created a process model describing the steps in the new method, and identified barriers and facilitators at each step.The medical group achieved substantial improvement using its new method of intraorganizational process development and spread of QI innovations: standard work for rooming and depression screening, vaccine error rates and order compliance, and Pap smear error rates. Our model details nine critical steps for successful intraorganizational process development (set priorities, assess the current state, develop the new process, and measure and refine) and spread (develop support, disseminate information, facilitate peer-to-peer training, reinforce, and learn and adapt). Our results highlight the importance of utilizing preexisting organizational structures such as established communication channels, standardized roles, common workflows, formal authority, and performance measurement and feedback systems when developing and spreading QI processes inside an organization. In particular, we detail how formal process advocate positions in each site for each role can facilitate the spread of new processes.Successful intraorganizational spread is possible and sustainable. Developing and spreading new QI processes across sites inside an organization requires creating a shared understanding of the necessary process steps, considering the barriers that may arise at each step, and leveraging preexisting organizational structures to facilitate intraorganizational process development and spread.

SUBMITTER: Kellogg KC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5590812 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct/Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An intraorganizational model for developing and spreading quality improvement innovations.

Kellogg Katherine C KC Gainer Lindsay A LA Allen Adrienne S AS OʼSullivan Tatum T Singer Sara J SJ

Health care management review 20171001 4

<h4>Background</h4>Recent policy reforms encourage quality improvement (QI) innovations in primary care, but practitioners lack clear guidance regarding spread inside organizations.<h4>Purpose</h4>We designed this study to identify how large organizations can facilitate intraorganizational spread of QI innovations.<h4>Methodology/approach</h4>We conducted ethnographic observation and interviews in a large, multispecialty, community-based medical group that implemented three QI innovations across ...[more]

PMID: 27428788

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) evaluations rarely consider how a successful intervention can be sustained long term, nor how to spread or scale to other locations. A survey of authors of randomized trials of diabetes QI interventions included in an ongoing systematic review found that 78% of trials reported improved quality of care, but 40% of these trials were not sustained. This study explores why and how the effective interventions were sustained, spread, or scaled.MethodsA qualitative approach was used, focusing on case examples. Diabetes QI program trial authors were purposefully sampled and recruited for telephone interviews. Authors were eligible if they had completed the author survey, agreed to follow-up, and had a completed a diabetes QI trial they deemed "effective." Snowball sampling was used if the participant identified someone who could provide a different perspective on the same trial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted to identify barriers and facilitators to sustainability, spread, and/or scale of the QI program, using case examples to show trajectories across projects and people.ResultsEleven of 44 eligible trialists participated in an interview. Four reported that the intervention was "sustained" and nine were "spread," however, interviews highlighted that these terms were interpreted differently over time and between participants. Participant stories highlighted the varied trajectories of how projects evolved and how some research careers adapted to increase impact. Three interacting themes, termed the "3C's," helped explain the variation in sustainability, spread, and scale: (i) understanding the concepts of implementation, sustainability, sustainment, spread, and scale; (ii) having the appropriate competencies; and (iii) the need for individual, organizational, and system capacity.ConclusionsChallenges in defining sustainability, spread and scale make it difficult to fully understand impact. However, it is clear that from the beginning of intervention design, trialists need to understand the concepts and have the competency and capacity to plan for feasible and sustainable interventions that have potential to be sustained, spread and/or scaled if found to be effective.

Project description:Introduction: The Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model was designed to address the health-related social needs of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiaries. Bridge organizations across the AHC Model have identified lack of technical assistance and peer planning as potential barriers to Model success, particularly around patient navigation. The technical assistance and peer planning literature lacks an organizing, conceptual framework, but implementation science frameworks could serve as useful guides. The Strengthening Peer AHC Navigation (SPAN) research protocol seeks to fill this gap and will apply three implementation science frameworks, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Intervention Mapping, and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation, to develop a multi-level quality improvement intervention and evaluate the impact of peer planning on Model outcomes. The aims of the SPAN study are to implement and evaluate a novel multi-level quality improvement intervention to improve AHC implementation and navigation milestones through structured peer planning and to provide successful technical assistance for the AHC Model. Methods and Analysis: The quality improvement intervention is outlined in four Tasks: (1) Assessment - to conduct an assessment of each bridge organization's current implementation, needs, and readiness in AHC Model navigation activities; (2) Planning - to engage in a peer planning approach to build capacity for AHC Model navigation activities; (3) Implementation with technical assistance - Co-creation of a quality improvement protocol for AHC Model navigation activities; and (4) Evaluation - measure the impact of the peer planning and technical assistance approach. Alongside the development and implementation of the quality improvement intervention, this protocol describes a mixed method, convergent parallel study design which will be used to evaluate whether the quality improvement intervention will lead to better outcomes. Tasks will be replicated with five bridge organizations participating in the AHC Model. Discussion: This research protocol provides a framework that can be used to conduct structured peer planning with technical assistance for social needs programs. This study will provide data on both implementation and outcomes which eventually may impact healthcare cost and utilization.

Project description:ObjectiveDespite having a detailed MRI-safety questionnaire check at the point of referral, we have encountered a significant number of near-misses with patients being identified with MRI-Unsafe devices at the time of appointments, making this an important safety hazard.Methods and materialsA two-part survey was performed to assess referrer compliance of asking MRI-questionnaires. 120 outpatients across 3 MRI sites were interviewed at the time of appointment to confirm whether their referrers completed the MRI questionnaires with them at the time of referral.Location:Department of Radiology, Ninewells Hospital, Perth Royal Infirmary and Stracathro Hospital in Scotland.ResultsOnly 50-55 % of patients confirmed that they were asked about presence of a pacemaker at the point of referral. Less than 50 % of patients reported being asked about other potential hazards.Suggested strategies for change: (1) Risk Alert-Sent to all MRI referrers in the organization. ( 2) Changes to MRI Safety Questionnaire. (3) Feedback mechanism to referrers-NHS trust website publications on number of recorded near-misses and wasted appointments due to MRI-safety issues. (4) Compulsory education/training of future referrers (junior doctors/allied health professionals). (5) Education of patients/public on MRI safety-Displaying patient information leaflets/posters in waiting areas of the hospital.Key measures for improvement: (1) Reduction in number of recorded near-misses. (2) System improvements, referrer and patient education, reduction of wasted MRI appointments and improvement of waiting-times for MRI appointments Effects of survey and conclusions: The survey highlights the possibility of inadequate referrer attention, and poor patient communication about MRI safety questionnaire with regards to potential hazards of MRI examination in presence of undeclared implants. It initiated several interventions resulting in improved patient safety, with no events in next 12 months, whilst promoting public and referrer's understanding of potential MRI safety issues. Such actions are recommended for all NHS centres across UK since there are significant similarities in functioning across UK.

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of health care provision have often focused on changing approaches to the way services are organized and delivered. Continuous quality improvement (CQI), an approach used extensively in industrial and manufacturing sectors, has been used in the health sector. Despite the attention given to CQI, uncertainties remain as to its effectiveness given the complex and diverse nature of health systems. This review assesses the effectiveness of CQI across different health care settings, investigating the importance of different components of the approach.MethodsWe searched 11 electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, Academic Search Complete, HMIC, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LISTA, and NHS EED to February 2019. Also, we searched reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews, as well as checking published protocols for linked papers. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within health care settings involving teams of health professionals, evaluating the effectiveness of CQI. Comparators included current usual practice or different strategies to manage organizational change. Outcomes were health care professional performance or patient outcomes. Studies were published in English.ResultsTwenty-eight RCTs assessed the effectiveness of different approaches to CQI with a non-CQI comparator in various settings, with interventions differing in terms of the approaches used, their duration, meetings held, people involved, and training provided. All RCTs were considered at risk of bias, undermining their results. Findings suggested that the benefits of CQI compared to a non-CQI comparator on clinical process, patient, and other outcomes were limited, with less than half of RCTs showing any effect. Where benefits were evident, it was usually on clinical process measures, with the model used (i.e., Plan-Do-Study-Act, Model of Improvement), the meeting type (i.e., involving leaders discussing implementation) and their frequency (i.e., weekly) having an effect. None considered socio-economic health inequalities.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests the benefits of CQI in improving health care are uncertain, reflecting both the poor quality of evaluations and the complexities of health services themselves. Further mixed-methods evaluations are needed to understand how the health service can use this proven approach.Trial registrationProtocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018088309).

Dataset Information

An intraorganizational model for developing and spreading quality improvement innovations.

Publications

An intraorganizational model for developing and spreading quality improvement innovations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets