The evaluation of the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles for a healthcare quality improvement intervention in primary care.

Deborah Manandi, Qiang Tu, Nashid Hafiz, Rebecca Raeside, Julie Redfern, Karice Hyun
{"title":"The evaluation of the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles for a healthcare quality improvement intervention in primary care.","authors":"Deborah Manandi, Qiang Tu, Nashid Hafiz, Rebecca Raeside, Julie Redfern, Karice Hyun","doi":"10.1071/PY23123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is an iterative framework that has been gaining traction in primary care for quality improvement. However, its implementation remains understudied. This study evaluated the completion, achievement of goal, content quality, and enablers and barriers associated with completion of high-quality PDSA cycles in cardiovascular disease management in general practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study analysed data from intervention practices of the QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living people with coronary heart disease (QUEL) study. Content quality of cycles was assessed using a scoring system created based on established criteria of ideal PDSA cycles in the healthcare context. Practice-level factors associated with completion and cycles achieving the planned goal were explored through logistic regression models, and with content quality score through linear regression model. Enablers and barriers were assessed using thematic analysis of practices' responses to the PDSA sections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-seven cycles were reported by 18/26 (69%) practices. Seventy-seven percent of the cycles were completed and 68% achieved the planned goal. Content quality was low, with a median score of 56% (interquartile interval: 44%, 67%). Odds of cycles that were completed and achieved what was planned increased by 3.6- and 9.6-fold, respectively, with more general practitioners (GPs) within practices. Content quality was higher by 15% with more GPs. Lack of interprofessional engagement was a barrier to implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cycles were well completed, but poor in content quality, with high variability between practices. Human or capital resources and organisational support may be critical for the completion and cycles achieving the planned goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":93892,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of primary health","volume":" ","pages":"NULL"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of primary health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/PY23123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is an iterative framework that has been gaining traction in primary care for quality improvement. However, its implementation remains understudied. This study evaluated the completion, achievement of goal, content quality, and enablers and barriers associated with completion of high-quality PDSA cycles in cardiovascular disease management in general practices.

Methods: This study analysed data from intervention practices of the QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living people with coronary heart disease (QUEL) study. Content quality of cycles was assessed using a scoring system created based on established criteria of ideal PDSA cycles in the healthcare context. Practice-level factors associated with completion and cycles achieving the planned goal were explored through logistic regression models, and with content quality score through linear regression model. Enablers and barriers were assessed using thematic analysis of practices' responses to the PDSA sections.

Results: Ninety-seven cycles were reported by 18/26 (69%) practices. Seventy-seven percent of the cycles were completed and 68% achieved the planned goal. Content quality was low, with a median score of 56% (interquartile interval: 44%, 67%). Odds of cycles that were completed and achieved what was planned increased by 3.6- and 9.6-fold, respectively, with more general practitioners (GPs) within practices. Content quality was higher by 15% with more GPs. Lack of interprofessional engagement was a barrier to implementation.

Conclusions: Cycles were well completed, but poor in content quality, with high variability between practices. Human or capital resources and organisational support may be critical for the completion and cycles achieving the planned goals.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对初级保健保健质量改进干预的计划-执行-研究-行动周期的评估。
背景:计划-执行-研究-行动(PDSA)循环是一个迭代框架,在初级保健质量改进中越来越受到关注。然而,其实施仍未得到充分研究。本研究评估了在一般实践中心血管疾病管理中完成、实现目标、内容质量以及与完成高质量PDSA周期相关的促进因素和障碍。方法:本研究分析了“改善初级保健质量,预防冠心病患者住院,提高护理效果和效率”(QUEL)研究的干预实践数据。周期的内容质量是使用一个评分系统来评估的,该评分系统是根据医疗环境中理想PDSA周期的既定标准创建的。通过逻辑回归模型探索与完成计划目标和周期相关的实践层面因素,并通过线性回归模型探索与内容质量评分相关的因素。使用对实践对PDSA部分的响应的专题分析来评估促进因素和障碍。结果:18/26(69%)例报告97个周期。77%的周期已经完成,68%的周期达到了计划目标。内容质量较低,中位数得分为56%(四分位数间隔:44%,67%)。随着更多的全科医生(gp)参与实践,完成并实现计划的周期的几率分别增加了3.6倍和9.6倍。全科医生越多,内容质量就会提高15%。缺乏跨专业参与是实施的一个障碍。结论:周期完成得很好,但内容质量差,实践之间的差异很大。人力或资本资源和组织支持可能是完成和周期实现计划目标的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Views of nurses and midwives working in primary healthcare services on intimate partner violence against women. The perspectives of people living with dementia and their carers on the role of the general practice nurse in dementia care provision: a qualitative study. Attitudes towards models of abortion care in sexual and reproductive health: perspectives of Australian health professionals. Investigating behaviours and attitudes regarding recommended vaccination in adults 50 years and above in Australia. Providing a localised cervical cancer screening course for general practice nurses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1