Dataset Information

Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement initiatives led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT: Background:Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods:A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ? 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. Results:The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions:This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritised determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this way it helps in bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

SUBMITTER: van Tuijl AAC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7584081 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement initiatives led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study.

van Tuijl Anne A C AAC Wollersheim Hub C HC Fluit Cornelia R M G CRMG van Gurp Petra J PJ Calsbeek Hiske H

Implementation science communications 20201023

<h4>Background</h4>Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of ...[more]

PMID: 33111063

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Professional burnout among medical trainees has been identified as a national concern in need of attention. A significant challenge for residency programs is designing and implementing effective strategies to promote resident wellness and reduce burnout. Emerging evidence highlights the importance of developing organizational changes targeting physician burnout. METHODS:To address this critical need, Harvard South Shore (HSS) Psychiatry Residency Training Program aimed to assess burnout among residents, identify areas for wellness-related growth, and implement strategies for organizational change to reduce burnout and increase wellness. We aligned closely to the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 guidelines to systematically approach planning, conducting, and evaluating this quality improvement effort. We developed a wellness action team and assessed burnout using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). We also conducted a survey to investigate high opportunity areas for wellness-related growth and using this data we designed and implemented four organizational initiatives to (i) improve residents' on-call experience, (ii) increase social activities, (iii) support preventative care, and (iv) promote wellness education. We then re-assessed burnout 1?year after implementation and performed two-sample t-tests to compare CBI scores. We additionally gathered and analyzed feedback from residents on the implemented organizational initiatives' relevance to wellness and their well-being. RESULTS:There was an overall clinically meaningful reduction in burnout averaged among all residents that participated. Participants indicated that fitness-oriented activities were most likely to lead to change in wellness habits. CONCLUSION:Our implemented wellness program was resident-led and involved continuous feedback from both residents and leadership. Given that there may be multiple factors that affect resident burnout, future studies involving a control group could help reveal whether our intervention contributed to the change in burnout scores we observed.

Project description:BackgroundInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs.Methods680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the VA Central IRB. Surveys included 27 statements adapted from Koocher and Kieth-Spiegel's IRB-RAT describing IRB activities or functions (e.g., "An IRB that is open to reversing its earlier decisions"). Respondents indicated how each statement described both their "ideal" and "actual" IRBs. The difference between the ratings of the actual and ideal IRBs was calculated for each item along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Ratings outside those intervals indicated activities or functions with relatively good or poor performance compared to the ideal IRB.Results390 (57.4%) responses from 165 IRB members and staff (65.5%) and 225 investigators and project coordinators (52.6%) demonstrated that these IRBs were closest to the ideal when protecting human subjects, treating investigators with respect, and taking appropriate action for alleged scientific misconduct. The IRBs were furthest from the ideal regarding duplicative forms, timeliness of review, and provision of complete rationales for decisions. Although IRB members reported near-ideal willingness to reverse earlier decisions, investigators rated this capacity far from ideal. Investigators rated IRB members' knowledge about procedures and policy as nearly ideal, but IRB members themselves rated this aspect far from ideal. Noteworthy site-level differences in the ratings of IRB functions and activities were also identified.ConclusionsAlthough these VA IRBs perform well in some areas, these data support the need for ongoing quality improvement. The described method of administering and analyzing the IRB-RAT may help identify and monitor site- and activity- specific initiatives for quality improvement.

Dataset Information

Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement initiatives led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study.

Publications

Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement initiatives led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure