卫生服务质量改进项目的特点:系统的范围审查。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1111/jebm.12670
Hanan Khalil, Caroline de Moel-Mandel, Deeksha Verma, Kathryn Kynoch, Ritin Fernandez, Mary-Anne Ramis, Jessica E Opie
{"title":"卫生服务质量改进项目的特点:系统的范围审查。","authors":"Hanan Khalil, Caroline de Moel-Mandel, Deeksha Verma, Kathryn Kynoch, Ritin Fernandez, Mary-Anne Ramis, Jessica E Opie","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Current QI reports within the literature frequently fail to provide enough information regarding interventions, and a significant number of publications do not mention the utilization of a guiding model or framework. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize the characteristics of hospital-based QI interventions and assess their alignment with recommended quality goals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews to synthesize existing literature on hospital-based QI interventions and reporting using the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews. Included studies involved a hospital-based QI intervention that was evaluated through the Development of the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) framework, reporting on hospital users' (i.e., practitioners and patients) data. We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PubMed databases for primary research published between 2015 and 2024. Grey literature was also examined. A narrative synthesis guided the integration of findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1398 identified records, 70 relevant records were included. Results indicate a wide variation in QI frameworks and methods used by the included studies. The QI interventions most frequently assessed were organizational-focused (n = 59), followed by professional-related interventions (n = 41) and patient-care interventions (n = 24). There were multiple facilitators and barriers across organizational, professional, and patient care levels found in the included studies. Examples of facilitators were instrumental in driving successful QI initiatives included education, training, active leadership, and stakeholder engagement. Conversely, barriers such as time constraints, resource limitations, and resistance were highlighted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Existing QI publications lack sufficient detail to replicate interventions. Using a model or framework to guide the conduct of a QI-activity may support a more robustly designed and well-conducted project. The variation of reporting characteristics suggests that future research should focus on the development of a pragmatic tool for use by front-line clinicians to support consistent and rigorous conduct of QI projects.</p>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics of Quality Improvement Projects in Health Services: A Systematic Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Hanan Khalil, Caroline de Moel-Mandel, Deeksha Verma, Kathryn Kynoch, Ritin Fernandez, Mary-Anne Ramis, Jessica E Opie\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jebm.12670\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Current QI reports within the literature frequently fail to provide enough information regarding interventions, and a significant number of publications do not mention the utilization of a guiding model or framework. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize the characteristics of hospital-based QI interventions and assess their alignment with recommended quality goals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews to synthesize existing literature on hospital-based QI interventions and reporting using the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews. Included studies involved a hospital-based QI intervention that was evaluated through the Development of the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) framework, reporting on hospital users' (i.e., practitioners and patients) data. We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PubMed databases for primary research published between 2015 and 2024. Grey literature was also examined. A narrative synthesis guided the integration of findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1398 identified records, 70 relevant records were included. Results indicate a wide variation in QI frameworks and methods used by the included studies. The QI interventions most frequently assessed were organizational-focused (n = 59), followed by professional-related interventions (n = 41) and patient-care interventions (n = 24). There were multiple facilitators and barriers across organizational, professional, and patient care levels found in the included studies. Examples of facilitators were instrumental in driving successful QI initiatives included education, training, active leadership, and stakeholder engagement. Conversely, barriers such as time constraints, resource limitations, and resistance were highlighted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Existing QI publications lack sufficient detail to replicate interventions. Using a model or framework to guide the conduct of a QI-activity may support a more robustly designed and well-conducted project. The variation of reporting characteristics suggests that future research should focus on the development of a pragmatic tool for use by front-line clinicians to support consistent and rigorous conduct of QI projects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12670\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12670","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目前文献中的QI报告经常不能提供有关干预措施的足够信息,并且大量出版物没有提到指导模型或框架的使用。本综述的目的是综合医院QI干预措施的特点,并评估其与推荐的质量目标的一致性。方法:本范围综述采用JBI方法进行范围综述,综合现有关于医院QI干预措施的文献,并使用PRISMA扩展进行范围综述。纳入的研究涉及基于医院的QI干预,通过制定质量改进最低质量标准集(QI- mqcs)框架对其进行评估,报告医院用户(即从业人员和患者)的数据。我们检索了Medline、CINAHL、Embase和PubMed数据库,检索了2015年至2024年间发表的主要研究。灰色文献也被检查。综合叙述指导了调查结果的整合。结果:在1398份鉴定记录中,共纳入70份相关记录。结果表明,纳入的研究中使用的QI框架和方法存在很大差异。最常被评估的QI干预措施是以组织为中心的(n = 59),其次是专业相关的干预措施(n = 41)和患者护理干预措施(n = 24)。在纳入的研究中发现,在组织、专业和患者护理水平上存在多种促进因素和障碍。促进者的例子在推动成功的QI计划方面发挥了重要作用,包括教育、培训、积极的领导和涉众参与。相反,时间限制、资源限制和阻力等障碍被强调。结论:现有的QI出版物缺乏足够的细节来复制干预措施。使用模型或框架来指导qi活动的执行,可以支持更健壮地设计和良好地执行的项目。报告特征的变化表明,未来的研究应侧重于开发一种实用的工具,供一线临床医生使用,以支持一致和严格的QI项目实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Characteristics of Quality Improvement Projects in Health Services: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Objective: Current QI reports within the literature frequently fail to provide enough information regarding interventions, and a significant number of publications do not mention the utilization of a guiding model or framework. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize the characteristics of hospital-based QI interventions and assess their alignment with recommended quality goals.

Methods: This scoping review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews to synthesize existing literature on hospital-based QI interventions and reporting using the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews. Included studies involved a hospital-based QI intervention that was evaluated through the Development of the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) framework, reporting on hospital users' (i.e., practitioners and patients) data. We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PubMed databases for primary research published between 2015 and 2024. Grey literature was also examined. A narrative synthesis guided the integration of findings.

Results: From 1398 identified records, 70 relevant records were included. Results indicate a wide variation in QI frameworks and methods used by the included studies. The QI interventions most frequently assessed were organizational-focused (n = 59), followed by professional-related interventions (n = 41) and patient-care interventions (n = 24). There were multiple facilitators and barriers across organizational, professional, and patient care levels found in the included studies. Examples of facilitators were instrumental in driving successful QI initiatives included education, training, active leadership, and stakeholder engagement. Conversely, barriers such as time constraints, resource limitations, and resistance were highlighted.

Conclusion: Existing QI publications lack sufficient detail to replicate interventions. Using a model or framework to guide the conduct of a QI-activity may support a more robustly designed and well-conducted project. The variation of reporting characteristics suggests that future research should focus on the development of a pragmatic tool for use by front-line clinicians to support consistent and rigorous conduct of QI projects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.40%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.
期刊最新文献
Extraversion and the Brain: A Coordinate-Based Meta-Analysis of Functional Brain Imaging Studies on Positive Affect. Characteristics of Quality Improvement Projects in Health Services: A Systematic Scoping Review. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Topical NSAIDs in the Treatment of Sports Injuries. Issue Information Barriers and Facilitators to the Participation of Pregnant Women in Clinical Research: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review
×
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