Dataset Information

Influence of participation in a quality improvement collaborative on staff perceptions of organizational sustainability.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sustainability capacity (SC), which is an organization's ability to implement and maintain change, is influenced by internal attributes, environmental contextual influencers, and intervention attributes. Temporal changes in staff SC perceptions, as well as the influence of quality improvement collaborative (QIC) participation, has generally not been explored. This project addresses this gap, measuring staff SC perceptions at four time points (baseline and every 9?months) for clinics participating in an intervention - the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment QIC initiative (called NIATx200).

Methods

A mixed linear model repeated measures analysis was applied to matched staff members (n?=?908, representing 2329 total cases) across the evaluation timeframe. Three separate statistical models assessed potential predictors of SC perceptions: Time (Models I-III); NIATx200 intervention, staff job function, and tenure (Models II &III); and NIATx200 participation hours and four organizational variables (Model III).

Results

For Model I, staff perceptions of total SC increased throughout most of the study (t_1,4?=?-?6.74, p?2,4?=?-?3.100, p?3,4?=?-?0.23, p?=?ns). Model II did not change Model I's overall Time effect, but combined NIATx200 services (t?=?-?2.23, p?=?.026), staff job function (t?=?-?3.27, p?=?.001), and organizational administrators (t?=?-?3.50, p?=?.001) were also significantly associated with greater perceptions of total SC. Inclusion of additional variables in Model III demonstrated the importance of a higher participation level (t?=?-?3.09, p?ConclusionAlthough staff exposure to sustainability principals was minimal in NIATx200, staff perceptions about their organization's SC significantly differed over time. However, an organization's participation level in a QIC became the principal predictor of staff SC perceptions, regardless of other factors' influence. Given these findings, it is possible to develop and introduce specific sustainability content within the structure of a QIC to assess the impact on staff SC perceptions over time and the sustainment of organizational change.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00934141 . Registered July 6, 2009. Retrospectively registered.

SUBMITTER: Ford JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7791971 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influence of participation in a quality improvement collaborative on staff perceptions of organizational sustainability.

Ford James H JH Gilson Aaron A

BMC health services research 20210107 1

<h4>Background</h4>Sustainability capacity (SC), which is an organization's ability to implement and maintain change, is influenced by internal attributes, environmental contextual influencers, and intervention attributes. Temporal changes in staff SC perceptions, as well as the influence of quality improvement collaborative (QIC) participation, has generally not been explored. This project addresses this gap, measuring staff SC perceptions at four time points (baseline and every 9 months) for c ...[more]

PMID: 33413357

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS TQIP) provides feedback to hospitals on risk-adjusted outcomes. The Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program (MTQIP) goes beyond the provision of feedback alone, focusing on collaborative quality improvement. It is unknown whether the addition of a collaborative approach to benchmark reporting improves outcomes. Objective:To evaluate the association of hospital participation in the ACS TQIP (benchmark reporting) or the MTQIP (benchmark reporting and collaborative quality improvement) with outcomes compared with control hospitals that did not participate in either program. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cohort study, data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2009 to 2015 were used. A total of 2?373?130 trauma patients 16 years or older with an Injury Severity Score of 5 or more were identified from 98 ACS TQIP hospitals, 23 MTQIP hospitals, and 429 nonparticipating hospitals, based on program participation status in 2011. A difference-in-differences analytic approach was used to evaluate whether hospital participation in the ACS TQIP or the MTQIP was associated with improved outcomes compared with nonparticipation in a quality improvement program. Exposures:Hospital participation in MTQIP, a quality improvement collaborative, compared with ACS TQIP participation and nonparticipating hospitals. Main Outcomes and Measures:In-hospital mortality, mortality or hospice, major complications, and venous thromboembolism events were assessed. Results:Of the 2 373 130 included trauma patients, 64.2% were men and 73.0% were white, and the mean (SD) age was 50.7 (21.9) years. After accounting for patient factors and preexisting time trends toward improved outcomes, there was a statistically significant improvement in major complications after (vs before) hospital enrollment in the MTQIP collaborative compared with nonparticipating hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95) or ACS TQIP hospitals (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94). A similar result was observed for venous thromboembolism (MTQIP vs nonparticipating: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; MTQIP vs ACS TQIP: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), for which MTQIP targeted specific performance improvement efforts. Hospital participation in both ACS TQIP and MTQIP was associated with improvement in mortality or hospice (ACS TQIP vs nonparticipating: OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93; MTQIP vs nonparticipating: OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96). Hospitals participating in MTQIP achieved the lowest overall risk-adjusted mortality in the postenrollment period (4.2%; 95% CI, 4.1-4.3). Conclusions and Relevance:This study demonstrates that hospital participation in a regional collaborative quality improvement program is associated with improved patient outcomes beyond benchmark reporting alone while promoting compliance with processes of care.

Project description:BackgroundRecent research, which explored the use of Quality Improvement (QI) methods in the Covid-19 pandemic response, found that Quality Improvement principles were utilised during the crisis management period, albeit without direct intention. Following on from this work, the aim of this paper extends that study by investigating the sustainability and resilience of not only the changes implemented by healthcare staff during Covid-19 in Ireland, but the resilience of the wellbeing of healthcare staff themselves through the various waves of Covid-19.MethodsTo explore healthcare staffs experience of Quality Improvement and the sustainability and resilience of both Quality Improvement initiatives and healthcare staff, a qualitative design was implemented. Semi-structured interviews took place online over Zoom with 11 healthcare staff members from the Irish healthcare service in the Spring of 2022. An analysis of the narratives was conducted using thematic analysis supported by NVivo12.ResultsFour key themes were evident from the data: (i) From fear to exhaustion; (ii) maintaining person-centred approaches to care; (iii) Covid-19 as a medium for change, and; (iv) staff resilience and appetite for Quality Improvement.DiscussionThe results of this work identified three key learnings; (i) integrating learning into policies and practice: (ii) the role of collective leadership and devolving/sharing power; and (iii) key drivers/factors that promote sustainability of QI interventions. Despite the challenges in recruitment of research participants experienced during the pandemic, a narrative approach supported the collation of rich and nuanced insights into the experiences of healthcare staff during this time.ConclusionA growing body of literature currently exists on how healthcare staff felt during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, as the waves of Covid-19 have declined, it is vital to examine how the feelings of burnout and disillusionment will affect engagement with Quality Improvement in the future. It is also worth noting and examining the feeling of purpose and pride participants expressed from working through the Covid-19 pandemic. This study has helped to address this gap.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough pay-for-performance (P4P) has become a central strategy for improving quality in US healthcare, questions persist about the effectiveness of these programs. A key question is whether quality improvement that occurs as a result of P4P programs is sustainable, particularly if incentives are removed.ObjectiveTo investigate sustainability of performance levels following removal of performance-based incentives.Design, setting, and participantsObservational cohort study that capitalized on a P4P program within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) that included adoption and subsequent removal of performance-based incentives for selected inpatient quality measures. The study sample comprised 128 acute care VA hospitals where performance was assessed between 2004 and 2010.InterventionVA system managers set annual performance goals in consultation with clinical leaders, and report performance scores to medical centers on a quarterly basis. These scores inform performance-based incentives for facilities and their managers. Bonuses are distributed based on the attainment of these performance goals.MeasurementsSeven quality of care measures for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and pneumonia linked to performance-based incentives.ResultsSignificant improvements in performance were observed for six of seven quality of care measures following adoption of performance-based incentives and were maintained up to the removal of the incentive; subsequently, the observed performance levels were sustained.LimitationsThis is a quasi-experimental study without a comparison group; causal conclusions are limited.ConclusionThe maintenance of performance levels after removal of a performance-based incentive has implications for the implementation of Medicare's value-based purchasing initiative and other P4P programs. Additional research is needed to better understand human and system-level factors that mediate sustainability of performance-based incentives.

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.

Dataset Information

Influence of participation in a quality improvement collaborative on staff perceptions of organizational sustainability.

Background

Methods

Results

Trial registration

Publications

Influence of participation in a quality improvement collaborative on staff perceptions of organizational sustainability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets