Dataset Information

A balanced approach to identifying, prioritising and evaluating all potential consequences of quality improvement: modified Delphi study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Healthcare is a complex system, so quality improvement will commonly lead to unintended consequences which are rarely evaluated. In previous qualitative work, we proposed a framework for considering the range of these potential consequences, in terms of their desirability and the extent to which they were predictable or expected during planning. This paper elaborates on the previous findings, using consensus methods to examine what consequences should be identified, why and how to prioritise, evaluate and interpret all identified consequences, and what stakeholders should be involved throughout this process. DESIGN:Two-round modified Delphi consensus study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Both rounds were completed by 60 panellists from an academic, clinical or management background and experience in designing, implementing or evaluating quality improvement programmes. RESULTS:Panellists agreed that trade-offs (expected undesirable consequences) and unpleasant surprises (unexpected undesirable consequences) should be actively considered. Measurement of harmful consequences for patients, and those with high workload or financial impact was prioritised, and their evaluation could also involve the use of qualitative methods. Clinical teams were agreed as important to involve at all stages, from identifying potential consequences, prioritising which of those to systematically evaluate, undertaking appropriate evaluation and interpreting the findings. Patients were necessary in identifying consequences, managers in identifying and prioritising, and improvement advisors in interpreting the data. CONCLUSION:There was consensus that a balanced approach to considering all the consequences of improvement can be achieved by carefully considering predictable trade-offs from the outset and deliberately pausing after implementation to identify any unexpected surprises and make an informed decision as to whether quantitative or qualitative evaluation is needed and feasible. Stakeholders' roles in in the process of identifying, prioritising, evaluating and interpreting potential consequences should be explicitly addressed within planning and revisited during and after implementation.

SUBMITTER: Toma M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6475234 | biostudies-other | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A balanced approach to identifying, prioritising and evaluating all potential consequences of quality improvement: modified Delphi study.

Toma Madalina M Dreischulte Tobias T Gray Nicola M NM Guthrie Bruce B

BMJ open 20190323 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>Healthcare is a complex system, so quality improvement will commonly lead to unintended consequences which are rarely evaluated. In previous qualitative work, we proposed a framework for considering the range of these potential consequences, in terms of their desirability and the extent to which they were predictable or expected during planning. This paper elaborates on the previous findings, using consensus methods to examine what consequences should be identified, why and ho ...[more]

PMID: 30904844

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of mental wellbeing. The identification and implementation of quality measures can improve health outcomes and patient experience. The objective was to identify and define a core set of valid and relevant pediatric mental health quality measures that will support health system evaluation and quality improvement in British Columbia, Canada.MethodsThe study consisted of four phases. First, a comprehensive database search identified valid pediatric quality measures focused on mental health and substance use (MH/SU). Second, the identified quality measures were mapped to focus areas, which were then prioritized by two stakeholder groups consisting of 26 members. Third, up to two representative measures for each prioritized focus area were pre-selected by an expert panel (n = 9). And fourth, a three-step modified Delphi approach was employed to (1) assess each quality measure on a 7-point Likert scale against three relevance criteria (representative of a quality problem, value to intended audience and actionable), (2) discuss the results, and (3) select and rank the most relevant measures. Forty-eight stakeholders were invited to participate; of those 24 completed the round 1 survey, 21 participated in the round 2 discussion and 18 voted in the round 3 selection and ranking survey. For round 1, consensus was determined when at least 70% of the response rates were within the range of five to seven. For round 3, Kendall's coefficient of concordance W was used as an estimator of inter-rater reliability.ResultsOne-hundred pediatric mental health quality measures were identified in the database search. Of those, 37 were mapped to ten focus areas. Pre-selection resulted in 19 representative measures moving forward to the Delphi study. Eleven measures met the consensus thresholds and were brought forward to the round 2 discussion. Round 3 ranking showed moderate to strong raters' agreement (Kendall's W = 0.595; p < 0.01) and resulted in the following five highest-ranked measures: level of satisfaction after discharge from inpatient admission due to MH/SU, number of patients experiencing seclusion or restraint, length of time from eating disorder referral to assessment, number of ED visits due to MH/SU, and number of readmissions to ED.ConclusionThe selected core set of valid and relevant pediatric quality measures will support sustainable system change in British Columbia. The five top-ranked measures will be refined and tested for data collection feasibility before being implemented in the province.

Project description:IntroductionThe Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups.Ethics and disseminationWe have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context.

Dataset Information

A balanced approach to identifying, prioritising and evaluating all potential consequences of quality improvement: modified Delphi study.

Publications

A balanced approach to identifying, prioritising and evaluating all potential consequences of quality improvement: modified Delphi study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets