How might patient involvement in healthcare quality improvement efforts work-A realist literature review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bergerum C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6803394 | biostudies-other | 2019 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Purpose of review:Quality improvement collaboratives can accelerate quality improvement and patient safety efforts. We reviewed major pediatric quality improvement collaboratives that have published results in the past five years and discussed common success factors and barriers encountered by these collaboratives. Recent Findings:Many pediatric quality improvement collaboratives are active in neonatal, cystic fibrosis, congenital heart disease, hematology/oncoogy, chronic kidney disease, rheumatology, critical care, and general pediatric care. Summary:Factors important to the success of these pediatric quality improvement collaboratives include data sharing and communication, trust among institutions, financial support, support from national organizations, use of a theoretical framework to guide collaboration, patient and family involvement, and incentives for participation at both the individual and institutional levels. Common barriers encountered by these collaboratives include insufficient funding or resources, legal concerns, difficulty coming to consensus on best practices and outcome measures, and overcoming cultural barriers to change. Learning from the successes and challenges encountered by these collaboratives will enable the pediatric healthcare quality improvement community to continue to evolve this approach to maximize benefits to children.
| S-EPMC7418888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCo-production and co-design approaches to quality improvement (QI) efforts are gaining momentum in healthcare. Yet, these approaches can be challenging, not least when it comes to patient involvement. The aim of this study was to examine what might influence QI efforts in which patients are involved, as experienced by the patients and the healthcare professionals involved.MethodsThis study involved a qualitative design inspired by the constructivist grounded theory. In one mid-sized Swedish hospital's patient process organisation, data was collected from six QI teams that involved patients in their QI efforts, addressing care paths for patients with transient, chronic and/or multiple parallel diagnoses. Field notes were collected from participant observations during 53 QI team meetings in three of the six patient processes. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 healthcare professionals in all the six QI teams.ResultsPatients were involved in QI efforts in different ways. In three of the QI teams, patient representatives attended team meetings regularly. One team consulted patient representatives on a single occasion, one team collected patient preferences structurally from individual interviews with patients, and one team combined interviews and a workshop with patients. The patients' and healthcare professionals' expressions of what might influence the QI efforts involving patients were similar in several ways. QI team members emphasized the importance of organisational structure and culture. Furthermore, they expressed a desire for ongoing interaction between patients and healthcare professionals in healthcare QI.ConclusionsQI team members recognised continuous dialogue and collective thinking by the sharing of experiences and preferences between patients and healthcare professionals as essential for achieving better matches between healthcare resources and patient needs in their QI efforts. Significant structural and cultural aspects of performing QI in complex hospital organisations were considered to be obstructions to progress. Therefore, to sustain learning and behaviour change through QI efforts at the team level, a deeper understanding of how structural and cultural aspects of QI promote or prevent success appears essential.
| S-EPMC7709309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Physicians increasingly investigate, work, and teach to improve the quality of care and safety of care delivery. The Society of General Internal Medicine Academic Hospitalist Task Force sought to develop a practical tool, the quality portfolio, to systematically document quality and safety achievements. The quality portfolio was vetted with internal and external stakeholders including national leaders in academic medicine. The portfolio was refined for implementation to include an outlined framework, detailed instructions for use and an example to guide users. The portfolio has eight categories including: (1) a faculty narrative, (2) leadership and administrative activities, (3) project activities, (4) education and curricula, (5) research and scholarship, (6) honors, awards, and recognition, (7) training and certification, and (8) an appendix. The authors offer this comprehensive, yet practical tool as a method to document quality and safety activities. It is relevant for physicians across disciplines and institutions and may be useful as a standalone document or as an adjunct to traditional promotion documents. As the Next Accreditation System is implemented, academic medical centers will require faculty who can teach and implement the systems-based practice requirements. The quality portfolio is a method to document quality improvement and safety activities.
| S-EPMC3889978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality circles (QCs) are commonly used in primary health care in Europe to consider and improve standard practice over time. They represent a complex social intervention that occurs within the fast-changing system of primary health care. Numerous controlled trials, reviews, and studies have shown small but unpredictable positive effect sizes on behavior change. Although QCs seem to be effective, stakeholders have difficulty understanding how the results are achieved and in generalizing the results with confidence. They also lack understanding of the active components of QCs which result in changes in the behavior of health care professionals. This protocol for a realist synthesis will examine how configurations of components and the contextual features of QCs influence their performance.Methods/designStakeholder interviews and a scoping search revealed the processes of QCs and helped to describe their core components and underlying theories. After clarifying their historical and geographical distribution, a purposive and systematic search was developed to identify relevant papers to answer the research questions, which are: understanding why, how, and when QCs work, over what time frame, and in what circumstances. After selecting and abstracting appropriate data, configurations of contexts and mechanisms which influence the outcome of QCs within each study will be identified. Studies will be grouped by similar propositional statements in order to identify patterns and validation from stakeholders sought. Finally, theories will be explored in order to explain these patterns and to help stakeholders maintain and improve QC performance.DiscussionAnalyzing context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) patterns will reveal how QCs work and how contextual factors interact to influence their outcome. The aim is to investigate unique configurations that enable them to improve the performance of health care professionals. Using a standardized reporting system, this realist review will allow the research questions to be answered to the satisfaction of key stakeholders and enable on-going critical examination and dissemination of the findings.Study registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004826.
| S-EPMC4029275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSchwartz Rounds ("Rounds") are a confidential group reflection forum, increasingly adopted to support pre-registration healthcare students. This realist review aims to understand what the available literature and key informant interviews can tell us about Rounds in this setting, asking what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why?MethodsPublished literature discussing Rounds in undergraduate settings were analysed using realist methods to describe how, for whom and in which contexts Rounds work. Four key informants were interviewed using realist methods, to further develop, test and refine a programme theory of Rounds in undergraduate settings.ResultsWe identified five core features and five contextual adaptations.Core: Rounds provide a reflective space to discuss emotional challenges; Rounds promote an open and humanised professional culture; Rounds offer role-modelling of vulnerability, enabling interpersonal connectedness; Rounds are impactful when focused on emotional and relational elements; Rounds offer reflective insights from a wide range of perspectives.Contextual adaptations: Rounds allow reflection to be more engaging for students when they are non-mandatory; perceptions of safety within a Round varies based on multiple factors; adapting timing and themes to students' changing needs may improve engagement; resonance with stories is affected by clinical experience levels; online adaptation can increase reach but may risk psychological safety.DiscussionSchwartz Rounds are a unique intervention that can support healthcare students through their pre-registration education. The five "core" and five "contextual adaptation" features presented identify important considerations for organisations implementing Rounds for their undergraduates.
| S-EPMC10742148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInter-organisational collaboration is increasingly prominent within contemporary healthcare systems. A range of collaboration types such as alliances, networks, and mergers have been proposed as a means to turnaround organisations, by reducing duplication of effort, enabling resource sharing, and promoting innovations. However, in practice, due to the complexity of the process, such efforts are often rife with difficulty. Notable contributions have sought to make sense of this area; however, further understanding is needed in order to gain a better understanding of why some inter-organisational collaborations work when others do not, to be able to more effectively implement collaborations in the future.MethodsRealist review methodology was used with the intention of formulating context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) to explain how inter-organisational collaborations work and why, combining systematic and purposive literature search techniques. The systematic review encompassed searches for reviews, commentaries, opinion pieces, and case studies on HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Social Policy and Practice databases, and further searches were conducted using Google Scholar. Data were extracted from included studies according to relevance to the realist review.ResultsFifty-three papers were included, informing the development of programme theories of how, why, and when inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work. Formulation of our programme theories incorporated the concepts of partnership synergy and collaborative inertia and found that it was essential to consider mechanisms underlying partnership functioning, such as building trust and faith in the collaboration to maximise synergy and thus collaborative performance. More integrative or mandated collaboration may lean more heavily on contract to drive collaborative behaviour.ConclusionAs the first realist review of inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare as an intervention for improvement, this review provides actionable evidence for policymakers and implementers, enhancing understanding of mechanisms underlying the functioning and performing of inter-organisational collaborations, as well as how to configure the context to aid success. Next steps in this research will test the results against further case studies and primary data to produce a further refined theory.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019149009.
| S-EPMC7984506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Involving patients in quality improvement is often suggested as a critical step for improving healthcare processes. However, this comes with challenges related to resources, tokenism, validity and competence. Therefore, to optimise the use of available resources, there is a need to understand at what stage in the improvement cycle patient involvement is most beneficial. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the phase of an improvement cycle in which patient involvement had the highest impact on radicality of improvement. DESIGN:An exploratory cross-sectional survey was used. SETTING AND METHODS:A questionnaire was completed by 155 Swedish healthcare professionals (response rate 34%) who had trained and had experience in patient involvement in quality improvement. Based on their replies, the impact of patient involvement on radicality in various phases of the improvement cycle was modelled using the partial least squares method. RESULTS:Patient involvement in quality improvement might help to identify and realise innovative solutions; however, there is variation in the impact of patient involvement on perceived radicality depending on the phase in which patients become involved. The highest impact on radicality was observed in the phases of capture experiences and taking action, while a moderate impact was observed in the evaluate phase. The lowest impact was observed in the identify and prioritise phase. CONCLUSIONS:Involving patients in improvement projects can enhance the quality of care and help to identify radically new ways of delivering care. This study shows that it is possible to suggest at what point in an improvement cycle patient involvement has the highest impact, which will enable more efficient use of the resources available for patient involvement.
| S-EPMC6231560 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement in diabetes research is an international requirement, but little is known about the relationship between the process of involvement and health outcomes.ObjectiveThis realist review identifies who benefits from different types of involvement across different contexts and circumstances. Search strategies Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched to identify interventions using targeted, embedded or collaborative involvement to reduce risk and promote self-management of diabetes. People at risk/with diabetes, providers and community organizations with an interest in addressing diabetes were included. There were no limitations on date, language or study type.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted from 29 projects using elements from involvement frameworks. A conceptual analysis of involvement types was used to complete the synthesis.Main resultsProjects used targeted (4), embedded (8) and collaborative (17) involvement. Productive interaction facilitated over a sufficient period of time enabled people to set priorities for research. Partnerships that committed to collaboration increased awareness of diabetes risk and mobilized people to co-design and co-deliver diabetes interventions. Cultural adaptation increased relevance and acceptance of the intervention because they trusted local delivery approaches. Local implementation produced high levels of recruitment and retention, which project teams associated with achieving diabetes health outcomes.Discussion and conclusionsAchieving understanding of community context, developing trusting relationships across sectors and developing productive partnerships were prerequisites for designing research that was feasible and locally relevant. The proportion of diabetes studies incorporating these elements is surprisingly low. Barriers to resourcing partnerships need to be systematically addressed.
| S-EPMC6803418 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9949907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis protocol describes a study of a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to support implementation and delivery of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in UK care homes. The QIC will be formed of health and social care professionals working in and with care homes and will be supported by clinical, quality improvement and research specialists. QIC participants will receive quality improvement training using the Model for Improvement. An appreciative approach to working with care homes will be encouraged through facilitated shared learning events, quality improvement coaching and assistance with project evaluation.Methods and analysisThe QIC will be delivered across a range of partnering organisations which plan, deliver and evaluate health services for care home residents in four local areas of one geographical region. A realist evaluation framework will be used to develop a programme theory informing how QICs are thought to work, for whom and in what ways when used to implement and deliver CGA in care homes. Data collection will involve participant observations of the QIC over 18 months, and interviews/focus groups with QIC participants to iteratively define, refine, test or refute the programme theory. Two researchers will analyse field notes, and interview/focus group transcripts, coding data using inductive and deductive analysis. The key findings and linked programme theory will be summarised as context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing what needs to be in place to use QICs to implement service improvements in care homes.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was reviewed by the National Health Service Health Research Authority (London Bromley research ethics committee reference: 205840) and the University of Nottingham (reference: LT07092016) ethics committees. Both determined that the Proactive HEAlthcare of Older People in Care Homes study was a service and quality improvement initiative. Findings will be shared nationally and internationally through conference presentations, publication in peer-reviewed journals, a graphical illustration and a dissemination video.
| S-EPMC6252778 | biostudies-literature