A mixed-methods study of challenges experienced by clinical teams in measuring improvement.

Quality & Safety in Health Care Pub Date : 2021-02-01 Epub Date: 2019-08-24 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2018-009048
Thomas Woodcock, Elisa G Liberati, Mary Dixon-Woods
{"title":"A mixed-methods study of challenges experienced by clinical teams in measuring improvement.","authors":"Thomas Woodcock, Elisa G Liberati, Mary Dixon-Woods","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2018-009048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Measurement is an indispensable element of most quality improvement (QI) projects, but it is undertaken to variable standards. We aimed to characterise challenges faced by clinical teams in undertaking measurement in the context of a safety QI programme that encouraged local selection of measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Drawing on an independent evaluation of a multisite improvement programme (Safer Clinical Systems), we combined a qualitative study of participating teams' experiences and perceptions of measurement with expert review of measurement plans and analysis of data collected for the programme. Multidisciplinary teams of frontline clinicians at nine UK NHS sites took part across the two phases of the programme between 2011 and 2016.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Developing and implementing a measurement plan against which to assess their improvement goals was an arduous task for participating sites. The operational definitions of the measures that they selected were often imprecise or missed important details. Some measures used by the teams were not logically linked to the improvement actions they implemented. Regardless of the specific type of data used (routinely collected or selected ex novo), the burdensome nature of data collection was underestimated. Problems also emerged in identifying and using suitable analytical approaches.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Measurement is a highly technical task requiring a degree of expertise. Simply leveraging individual clinicians' motivation is unlikely to defeat the persistent difficulties experienced by clinical teams when attempting to measure their improvement efforts. We suggest that more structural initiatives and broader capability-building programmes should be pursued by the professional community. Improving access to, and ability to use repositories of validated measures, and increasing transparency in reporting measurement attempts, is likely to be helpful.</p>","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"30 1","pages":"106-115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7841469/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-009048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Measurement is an indispensable element of most quality improvement (QI) projects, but it is undertaken to variable standards. We aimed to characterise challenges faced by clinical teams in undertaking measurement in the context of a safety QI programme that encouraged local selection of measures.

Methods: Drawing on an independent evaluation of a multisite improvement programme (Safer Clinical Systems), we combined a qualitative study of participating teams' experiences and perceptions of measurement with expert review of measurement plans and analysis of data collected for the programme. Multidisciplinary teams of frontline clinicians at nine UK NHS sites took part across the two phases of the programme between 2011 and 2016.

Results: Developing and implementing a measurement plan against which to assess their improvement goals was an arduous task for participating sites. The operational definitions of the measures that they selected were often imprecise or missed important details. Some measures used by the teams were not logically linked to the improvement actions they implemented. Regardless of the specific type of data used (routinely collected or selected ex novo), the burdensome nature of data collection was underestimated. Problems also emerged in identifying and using suitable analytical approaches.

Conclusion: Measurement is a highly technical task requiring a degree of expertise. Simply leveraging individual clinicians' motivation is unlikely to defeat the persistent difficulties experienced by clinical teams when attempting to measure their improvement efforts. We suggest that more structural initiatives and broader capability-building programmes should be pursued by the professional community. Improving access to, and ability to use repositories of validated measures, and increasing transparency in reporting measurement attempts, is likely to be helpful.

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
临床团队在衡量改进方面遇到的挑战的混合方法研究
目标测量是大多数质量改进(QI)项目中不可或缺的元素,但它是按照可变的标准进行的。我们旨在描述临床团队在鼓励当地选择措施的安全QI计划的背景下进行测量时面临的挑战。方法根据对多站点改进计划(更安全的临床系统)的独立评估,我们将参与团队对测量的经验和看法的定性研究与对测量计划的专家审查和对该计划收集的数据的分析相结合。2011年至2016年间,英国国家医疗服务体系九个站点的一线临床医生组成的多学科团队参与了该计划的两个阶段。结果制定和实施一项衡量计划,以评估其改进目标,这对参与现场来说是一项艰巨的任务。他们选择的措施的操作定义往往不准确或遗漏了重要细节。团队使用的一些措施与他们实施的改进行动没有逻辑联系。无论使用哪种特定类型的数据(常规收集或从头选择),都低估了数据收集的繁重性。在确定和使用适当的分析方法方面也出现了问题。结论测量是一项技术性很强的任务,需要一定程度的专业知识。仅仅利用临床医生个人的动机不太可能克服临床团队在试图衡量其改进努力时所经历的持续困难。我们建议,专业界应采取更多的结构性举措和更广泛的能力建设方案。改进对已验证度量的访问和使用存储库的能力,并提高报告度量尝试的透明度,可能会有所帮助。
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
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
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