Formative qualitative evaluation of an improvement programme delivered in an English hospital trust to reduce harm from pressure ulcers.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Open Quality Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002532
Anna Dallow, Katharine Goldthorpe, Peter Murphy, Denham Phipps, Paryaneh Rostami
{"title":"Formative qualitative evaluation of an improvement programme delivered in an English hospital trust to reduce harm from pressure ulcers.","authors":"Anna Dallow, Katharine Goldthorpe, Peter Murphy, Denham Phipps, Paryaneh Rostami","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundPressure ulcers (PUs) are a leading cause of preventable harm globally and can cause patients significant pain, infection and, in rare incidents, death. There is a strong evidence base for how to improve PUs and one UK healthcare trust used this evidence to develop a quality improvement (QI) programme using the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series collaborative model. 20 teams, from both acute and community settings, participated in the first two phases of the collaborative. The delivery of both phases used virtual delivery using the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's improvement model. This study sought to formatively evaluate the early phases of the collaborative, to support learning and continual improvements to the collaborative programme and other collaboratives delivered by the organisation based on the formative evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled participants to explore their perspectives about the implementation of the programme, interventions tested as part of the 'change package' provided and the pandemic's impact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of seven participants were interviewed, including acute ward managers, a charge nurse (deputy ward manager), a wound healing community nurse and a team leader community nurse. Interview durations varied from 9 min to 28 min. The interviews were kept short and stopped when data saturation was achieved as it was an extremely pressurised time for the organisation where the highest escalation alert was triggered on numerous occasions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A sustained reduction in PUs was achieved during the evaluation period and participants felt that the approach helped to achieve this, regardless of the adaptations made to the delivery method due to the pandemic. To support improvements, it is vital to ensure systems such as data collection are accurate and timely. The necessity for building strong foundations for QI capability must not be underestimated, as greater QI knowledge leads to better engagement and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11308871/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundPressure ulcers (PUs) are a leading cause of preventable harm globally and can cause patients significant pain, infection and, in rare incidents, death. There is a strong evidence base for how to improve PUs and one UK healthcare trust used this evidence to develop a quality improvement (QI) programme using the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series collaborative model. 20 teams, from both acute and community settings, participated in the first two phases of the collaborative. The delivery of both phases used virtual delivery using the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's improvement model. This study sought to formatively evaluate the early phases of the collaborative, to support learning and continual improvements to the collaborative programme and other collaboratives delivered by the organisation based on the formative evaluation.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled participants to explore their perspectives about the implementation of the programme, interventions tested as part of the 'change package' provided and the pandemic's impact.

Results: A total of seven participants were interviewed, including acute ward managers, a charge nurse (deputy ward manager), a wound healing community nurse and a team leader community nurse. Interview durations varied from 9 min to 28 min. The interviews were kept short and stopped when data saturation was achieved as it was an extremely pressurised time for the organisation where the highest escalation alert was triggered on numerous occasions.

Conclusion: A sustained reduction in PUs was achieved during the evaluation period and participants felt that the approach helped to achieve this, regardless of the adaptations made to the delivery method due to the pandemic. To support improvements, it is vital to ensure systems such as data collection are accurate and timely. The necessity for building strong foundations for QI capability must not be underestimated, as greater QI knowledge leads to better engagement and outcomes.

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
对英国一家医院托管机构为减少压疮造成的伤害而实施的改进计划进行形成性定性评估。
背景压疮(PUs)是全球可预防伤害的主要原因之一,会给患者带来严重的疼痛、感染,在极少数情况下还会导致死亡。如何改善压疮有很强的证据基础,英国一家医疗保健信托机构利用这些证据,采用医疗保健改进研究所的 "突破系列 "合作模式,制定了一项质量改进(QI)计划。来自急诊和社区的 20 个团队参加了协作的前两个阶段。这两个阶段的实施都采用了医疗保健改进研究所的改进模式,即虚拟实施。本研究旨在对合作的早期阶段进行形成性评估,以支持学习,并在形成性评估的基础上不断改进合作计划和该组织开展的其他合作:方法:有目的性地抽取参与者进行了半结构式访谈,以探讨他们对计划实施、作为 "变革一揽子计划 "一部分而测试的干预措施以及大流行病影响的看法:共有七名参与者接受了访谈,其中包括急症病房经理、一名责任护士(副病房经理)、一名伤口愈合社区护士和一名社区护士组长。访谈时间从 9 分钟到 28 分钟不等。访谈时间很短,当数据达到饱和时就停止了,因为当时组织内的压力非常大,多次触发了最高级别的警报:在评估期间,PU 实现了持续减少,参与者认为这种方法有助于实现这一目标,无论因大流行病而对提供方法做出何种调整。为支持改进工作,确保数据收集等系统准确及时至关重要。绝不能低估为质量保证能力打下坚实基础的必要性,因为更多的质量保证知识会带来更好的参与和成果。
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
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Combining quality improvement and critical care training: Evaluating an ICU CPR training programme quality improvement initiative at the National Hospital in Tanzania. Improving the non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) pathway using quality improvement methodology. Achieving and sustaining reduction in hospital-acquired complications in an Australian local health service. Click and learn: a longitudinal interprofessional case-based sepsis education curriculum. Increasing the uptake of advance care directives through staff education and one-on-one support for people facing end-of-life.
×
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