Dataset Information

Development, characteristics and impact of quality improvement casebooks: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quality improvement (QI) casebooks, compilations of QI experiences, are one way to share experiential knowledge that healthcare policy-makers, managers and professionals can adapt to their own contexts. However, QI casebook use, characteristics and impact are unknown. We aimed to synthesize published research on QI prevalence, development, characteristics and impact.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS from inception to 4 February 2021. We extracted data on study characteristics and casebook definitions, development, characteristics (based on the WIDER [Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research] framework) and impact. We reported findings using summary statistics, text and tables.

Results

We screened 2999 unique items and included five articles published in Canada from 2011 to 2020 describing three studies. Casebooks focused on promoting positive weight-related conversations with children and parents, coordinating primary care-specialist cancer management, and showcasing QI strategies for cancer management. All defined casebooks similarly described real-world experiences of developing and implementing QI strategies that others could learn from, emulate or adapt. In all studies, casebook development was a multistep, iterative, interdisciplinary process that engages stakeholders in identifying, creating and reviewing content. While casebooks differed in QI topic, level of application and scope, cases featured common elements: setting or context, QI strategy details, impacts achieved, and additional tips for implementing strategies. Cases were described with a blend of text, graphics and tools. One study evaluated casebook impact, and found that it enhanced self-efficacy and use of techniques to improve clinical care. Although details about casebook development and characteristics were sparse, we created a template of casebook characteristics, which others can use as the basis for developing or evaluating casebooks.

Conclusion

Future research is needed to optimize methods for developing casebooks and to evaluate their impact. One approach is to assess how the many QI casebooks available online were developed. Casebooks should be evaluated alone or in combination with other interventions that support QI on a range of outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Anderson NN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425030 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) is used in nursing homes (NH) to implement and sustain improvements in patient outcomes. Little is known about how QI strategies are used in NHs. This lack of information is a barrier to replicating successful strategies. Guided by the Framework for Implementation Research, the purpose of this study was to map-out the use, evaluation, and reporting of QI strategies in NHs.MethodsThis scoping review was completed to identify reports published between July 2003 through February 2019. Two reviewers screened articles and included those with (1) the term "quality improvement" to describe their methods, or reported use of a QI model (e.g., Six Sigma) or strategy (e.g., process mapping) (2), findings related to impact on service and/or resident outcomes, and (3) two or more NHs included. Reviewers extracted data on study design, setting, population, problem, solution to address problem, QI strategies, and outcomes (implementation, service, and resident). Vote counting and narrative synthesis were used to describe the use of QI strategies, implementation outcomes, and service and/or resident outcomes.ResultsOf 2302 articles identified, the full text of 77 articles reporting on 59 studies were included. Studies focused on 23 clinical problems, most commonly pressure ulcers, falls, and pain. Studies used an average of 6 to 7 QI strategies. The rate that strategies were used varied substantially, e.g., the rate of in-person training (55%) was more than twice the rate of plan-do-study-act cycles (20%). On average, studies assessed two implementation outcomes; the rate these outcomes were used varied widely, with 37% reporting on staff perceptions (e.g., feasibility) of solutions or QI strategies vs. 8% reporting on fidelity and sustainment. Most studies (n = 49) reported service outcomes and over half (n = 34) reported resident outcomes. In studies with statistical tests of improvement, service outcomes improved more often than resident outcomes.ConclusionsThis study maps-out the scope of published, peer-reviewed studies of QI in NHs. The findings suggest preliminary guidance for future studies designed to promote the replication and synthesis of promising solutions. The findings also suggest strategies to refine procedures for more effective improvement work in NHs.

Project description:BackgroundSignificant resources are invested in the UK to collect data for National Clinical Audits (NCAs), but it is unclear whether and how they facilitate local quality improvement (QI). The perioperative setting is a unique context for QI due to its multidisciplinary nature and history of measurement. It is unclear which NCAs evaluate perioperative care, to what extent their data have been used for QI, and which factors influence this usage.MethodsNCAs were identified from the directories held by Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP), Scottish Healthcare Audits and the Welsh National Clinical Audit and Outcome Review Advisory Committee. QI reports were identified by the following: systematically searching MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar and HMIC up to December 2019, hand-searching grey literature and consulting relevant stakeholders. We charted features describing both the NCAs and the QI reports and summarised quantitative data using descriptive statistics and qualitative themes using framework analysis.ResultsWe identified 36 perioperative NCAs in the UK and 209 reports of local QI which used data from 19 (73%) of these NCAs. Six (17%) NCAs contributed 185 (89%) of these reports. Only one NCA had a registry of local QI projects. The QI reports were mostly brief, unstructured, often published by NCAs themselves and likely subject to significant reporting bias. Factors reported to influence local QI included the following: perceived data validity, measurement of clinical processes as well as outcomes, timely feedback, financial incentives, sharing of best practice, local improvement capabilities and time constraints of clinicians.ConclusionsThere is limited public reporting of UK perioperative NCA data for local QI, despite evidence of improvement of most NCA metrics at the national level. It is therefore unclear how these improvements are being made, and it is likely that opportunities are being missed to share learning between local sites. We make recommendations for how NCAs could better support the conduct, evaluation and reporting of local QI and suggest topics which future research should investigate.Trial registrationThe review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42018092993 ).