Dataset Information

Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Quality improvement (QI) may help to avert or mitigate the risks of suboptimal care, but it is often poorly reported in the healthcare literature. We aimed to identify the influences on reporting QI in the area of perioperative care, with a view to informing improvements in reporting QI across healthcare.

Design

Qualitative interview study.

Setting

Healthcare and academic organisations in Australia, Europe and North America.

Participants

Stakeholders involved in or influencing the publication, writing or consumption of reports of QI studies in perioperative care.

Results

Forty-two participants from six countries took part in the study. Participants included 15 authors (those who write QI reports), 12 consumers of QI reports (practitioners who apply QI research in practice), 11 journal editors and 4 authors of reporting guidelines. Participants identified three principal challenges in achieving high-quality QI reporting. First, the broad scope of QI reporting-ranging from small local projects to multisite research across different disciplines-causes uncertainty about where QI work should be published. Second, context is fundamental to the success of a QI intervention but is difficult to report in ways that support replication and development. Third, reporting is adversely affected by both proximal influences (such as lack of time to write up QI) and more distal, structural influences (such as norms about the format and content of biomedical research reporting), leading to incomplete reporting of QI findings.

Conclusions

Divergent terminology and understandings of QI, along with existing reporting norms and the challenges of capturing context adequately yet succinctly, make for challenges in reporting QI. We offer suggestions for improvement.

SUBMITTER: Jones EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6661647 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care.

Jones Emma Leanne EL Dixon-Woods Mary M Martin Graham P GP

BMJ open 20190724 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>Quality improvement (QI) may help to avert or mitigate the risks of suboptimal care, but it is often poorly reported in the healthcare literature. We aimed to identify the influences on reporting QI in the area of perioperative care, with a view to informing improvements in reporting QI across healthcare.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative interview study.<h4>Setting</h4>Healthcare and academic organisations in Australia, Europe and North America.<h4>Participants</h4>Stakeholders invol ...[more]

PMID: 31345983

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP) is designed to measure complications after major elective surgery and improve these through feedback of data to clinicians. Previous research suggests that despite the significant resources which go into collecting data for national clinical audits, the information they contain is not always used effectively to improve local services.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a formative process evaluation of PQIP comprising a multisited qualitative study to analyse PQIP's programme theory, barriers, facilitators and wider contextual factors that influence implementation. The research will be carried out with the PQIP project team and six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected according to geographical location, type of hospital, size and level of engagement with PQIP. We will include one Trust which has not expressed interest in the PQIP for comparison and to explore the role of secular trend in any changes in practice. We will use semi-structured interviews (up to 144 in Trusts and 12 with the project team), non-participant observations (up to 150 ?hours) and documentary analysis. We will track the lifecycle of perioperative data, exploring the transformations it undergoes from creation to use. We will use framework analysis with categories both from our research questions and from themes emerging from the data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted from the University College London Research Ethics Committee (ref 10375/001). Permissions to conduct research at NHS Trusts have been granted by local Research and Development offices in coordination with the Health Research Authority. We will follow guidelines for data security, confidentiality and information governance. Findings will be shared at regular time points with the PQIP project team to inform the implementation of the programme, and with participating NHS Trusts to help them reflect on how they currently use data for improvement of perioperative services.

Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of older people reach the end of life in care homes. The aim of this study is to explore the perceived benefits of, and barriers to, implementation of the Gold Standards Framework for Care Homes (GSFCH), a quality improvement programme in palliative care.MethodsNine care homes involved in the GSFCH took part. We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine care home managers, eight nurses, nine care assistants, eleven residents and seven of their family members. We used the Framework approach to qualitative analysis. The analysis was deductive based on the key tasks of the GSFCH, the 7Cs: communication, coordination, control of symptoms, continuity, continued learning, carer support, and care of the dying. This enabled us to consider benefits of, and barriers to, individual components of the programme, as well as of the programme as a whole.ResultsPerceived benefits of the GSFCH included: improved symptom control and team communication; finding helpful external support and expertise; increasing staff confidence; fostering residents' choice; and boosting the reputation of the home. Perceived barriers included: increased paperwork; lack of knowledge and understanding of end of life care; costs; and gaining the cooperation of GPs. Many of the tools and tasks in the GSFCH focus on improving communication. Participants described effective communication within the homes, and with external providers such as general practitioners and specialists in palliative care. However, many had experienced problems with general practitioners. Although staff described the benefits of supportive care registers, coding predicted stage of illness and advance care planning, which included improved communication, some felt the need for more experience of using these, and there were concerns about discussing death.ConclusionsMost of the barriers described by participants are relevant to other interventions to improve end of life care in care homes. There is a need to investigate the impact of quality improvement programmes in care homes, such as the GSFCH, on a wider range of outcomes for residents and their families, and to monitor the sustainability of any resulting improvements. It is also important to explore the impact of the different components of these complex interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore primary care administrators' perceptions of provincially mandated quality improvement plans, and barriers to and facilitators of using quality improvement plans as tools for improving the quality of primary care.DesignQualitative descriptive study using semistructured interviews.SettingOntario.ParticipantsEleven primary care administrators (ie, executive directors, director of clinical services, office administrators) at 7 family health teams and 4 community health centres.MethodsAll interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed deductively to generate a framework based on a conceptual model of structural, organizational, individual, and innovation-related factors that influence the success of improvement initiatives and, inductively, to generate additional themes.Main findingsProvincially mandated quality improvement plans seem to have raised awareness of and provided an overall focus on quality improvement, and have contributed to primary care organizations implementing initiatives to address quality gaps. Four factors that have contributed to the success of quality improvement plans relate to attributes of the quality improvement plans (adaptability and compatibility) and contextual factors (leadership and organizational culture). However, participants expressed that the use of quality improvement plans have not yet led to substantial improvements in the quality of primary care in Ontario, which may be owing to several challenges: poor data quality, lack of staff and physician engagement and buy-in, and lack of resources to support measurement and quality improvement.ConclusionAwareness of and focused attention on the need for high-quality patient care may have increased, but participants expressed that substantial improvements in quality care have yet to be achieved in Ontario. The lack of perceived improvements is likely the result of multifaceted and complex challenges primary care organizations face when trying to improve patient care. To effect positive change, organization- and health system-level efforts are needed to improve measurement capabilities, improve staff and physician engagement, and increase capacity for quality improvement among organizations.

Project description:BackgroundPerioperative medicine services for older surgical patients are being developed across several countries. This qualitative study aims to explore geriatricians' perspectives on challenges and opportunities for developing and delivering integrated geriatrics perioperative medicine services.MethodsA qualitative phenomenological semi-structured interview design. All geriatric medicine departments in acute public hospitals across Australia and New Zealand (n = 81) were approached. Interviews were conducted with 38 geriatricians. Data were analysed thematically using a framework approach.ResultsGeriatricians identified several system level barriers to developing geriatrics perioperative medicine services. These included lack of funding for staffing, encroaching on existing consultative services, and competing clinical priorities. The key barrier at the healthcare professional level was the current lack of clarity of roles within the perioperative care team. Key facilitators were perceived unmet patient needs, existing support for geriatrician involvement from surgical and anaesthetic colleagues, and the unique skills geriatricians can bring to perioperative care. Despite reporting barriers, geriatricians are contemplating and implementing integrated proactive perioperative medicine services. Geriatricians identified a need to support other specialties gain clinical experience in geriatric medicine and called for pragmatic research to inform service development.ConclusionsGeriatricians perceive several challenges at the system and healthcare professional levels that are impacting current development of geriatrics perioperative medicine services. Yet their strong belief that patient needs can be met with their specialty skills and their high regard for team-based care, has created opportunities to implement innovative multidisciplinary models of care for older surgical patients. The barriers and evidence gaps highlighted in this study may be addressed by qualitative and implementation science research. Future work in this area may include application of patient-reported measures and qualitative research with patients to inform patient-centred perioperative care.

Project description:IntroductionSurgical services are increasingly seen to reduce death and disability in Sub-Saharan Africa, where hospital-based mortality remains alarmingly high. This study explores two implementation approaches to improve the quality of perioperative care in a Tanzanian hospital. Effects were compared to a control group of two other hospitals in the region without intervention.MethodsAll hospitals conducted quality assessments with a Hospital Performance Assessment Tool. Changes in immediate outcome indicators after one and two years were compared to final outcome indicators such as Anaesthetic Complication Rate and Surgical Case Fatality Rate.ResultsImmediate outcome indicators for Preoperative Care in the intervention hospital improved (52.5% in 2009; 84.2% in 2011, p<0.001). Postoperative Inpatient Care initially improved to then decline again (63.3% in 2009; 70% in 2010; 58.6% in 2011). In the control group, preoperative care declined from 50.8% (2009) to 32.8% (2011, p <0.001), while postoperative care did not significantly change. Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the intervention hospital declined (1.89% before intervention; 0.96% after intervention, p = 0.006). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the intervention hospital declined from 5.67% before intervention to 2.93% after intervention (p<0.0010). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the control group was 4% before intervention and 3.8% after intervention (p = 0.411). Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the control group was not available.DiscussionImmediate outcome indicators initially improved, while at the same time final outcome declined (Surgical Case Fatality, Anaesthetic Complication Rate). Compared to the control group, final outcome improved more in the intervention hospital, although the effect was not significant over the whole study period. Documentation of final outcome indicators seemed inconsistent. Immediate outcome indicators seem more helpful to steer the Continuous Quality Improvement program.ConclusionSpecific interventions as part of Continuous Quality Improvement might lead to sustainable improvement of the quality of care, if embedded in a multi-faceted approach.

Project description:BackgroundThe most common route to a diagnosis of cancer is through primary care. Delays in diagnosing cancer occur when an opportunity to make a timely diagnosis is missed and is evidenced by patients visiting the general practitioner (GP) on multiple occasions before referral to a specialist. Tools that minimize prolonged diagnostic intervals and reduce missed opportunities to investigate patients for cancer are therefore a priority.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the usefulness and feasibility of a novel quality improvement (QI) tool in which algorithms flag abnormal test results that may be indicative of undiagnosed cancer. This study allows for the optimization of the cancer recommendations before testing the efficacy in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsGPs, practice nurses, practice managers, and consumers were recruited to participate in individual interviews or focus groups. Participants were purposively sampled as part of a pilot and feasibility study, in which primary care practices were receiving recommendations relating to the follow-up of abnormal test results for prostate-specific antigen, thrombocytosis, and iron-deficiency anemia. The Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) was applied to the analysis using a thematic approach.ResultsA total of 17 interviews and 3 focus groups (n=18) were completed. Participant themes were mapped to CP-FIT across the constructs of context, recipient, and feedback variables. The key facilitators to use were alignment with workflow, recognized need, the perceived importance of the clinical topic, and the GPs' perception that the recommendations were within their control. Barriers to use included competing priorities, usability and complexity of the recommendations, and knowledge of the clinical topic. There was consistency between consumer and practitioner perspectives, reporting language concerns associated with the word cancer, the need for more patient-facing resources, and time constraints of the consultation to address patients' worries.ConclusionsThere was a recognized need for the QI tool to support the diagnosis of cancer in primary care, but barriers were identified that hindered the usability and actionability of the recommendations in practice. In response, the tool has been refined and is currently being evaluated as part of a randomized controlled trial. Successful and effective implementation of this QI tool could support the detection of patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer in primary care and assist in preventing unnecessary delays.

Dataset Information

Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets