Understanding quality improvement collaboratives through an implementation science lens

Objective The aim of the present study was to identify key enabling factors for engaging multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in cancer care across the spectrum of translational research and quality improvement (QI) projects. Methods The study was conducted in two large Sydney metropolitan hospitals. Qualitative methods, including structured observations of MDT meetings and semi-structured interviews with MDT leaders and champions, were used to identify how teams interact with and generate research and implementation initiatives. Enabling factors for and barriers to the engagement of MDTs in translational research and QI were identified. Results Four key enabling factors emerged from the analysis of data generated from observing 43 MDT meetings and 18 semi-structured interviews: (1) access to high-quality data around individual and team performance; (2) research-active team leaders; (3) having experts, such as implementation scientists, embedded into teams; and (4) having dedicated research or QI-focused meetings. Barriers included a lack of time, administrative support, research expertise and access to real-time data. Conclusions The identification of enabling factors for and barriers to translational research and QI provides evidence for how multidisciplinary cancer care teams may best be engaged in research and QI that aims to improve service and care outcomes. What is known about the topic? MDTs are key to the delivery of cancer care in Australia, but there is scant research into how teams can best be engaged in translating research from basic science through to implementation science and QI. What does this paper add? This paper provides new evidence from an immersive study of cancer care MDTs in two large metropolitan hospitals in Sydney (NSW, Australia), regarding the key enabling factors for and barriers to successful engagement in translational research and QI in cancer care. What are the implications for practitioners? Cancer care professionals in MDTs are presented with an opportunity to embed translational research and QI into cancer care. MDTs can operate as an ideal vehicle to look beyond individual patient outcomes to broader trends and population health outcomes.

Download Full-text

Physician Motivation: Listening to What Pay-for-Performance Programs and Quality Improvement Collaboratives Are Telling Us

The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety ◽

10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41069-4 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 41 (11) ◽

pp. 522-528 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Kurt R. Herzer ◽

Peter J. Pronovost

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Pay For Performance ◽

Quality Improvement Collaboratives

Download Full-text

Improving Quality Improvement Collaboratives

Advances in Healthcare Information Systems and Administration - Design, Development, and Integration of Reliable Electronic Healthcare Platforms ◽

10.4018/978-1-5225-1724-5.ch014 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 243-254

Author(s):

Priscilla A. Arling ◽

Edward J. Miech ◽

Greg W. Arling

Keyword(s):

Patient Outcome ◽

Quality Improvement ◽

Electronic Communication ◽

Healthcare Quality ◽

Falls Prevention ◽

Positive Patient ◽

Face To Face ◽

Prevention Project ◽

Geographical Dispersion ◽

Quality Improvement Collaboratives

For several decades, researchers have studied the comparative effects of face-to-face and electronic communication. Some have claimed that electronic communication is detrimental to outcomes while others have emphasized its advantages. For members of healthcare quality improvement (QI) collaboratives, a mix of both of types of communication is often used, due to geographical dispersion. This chapter examines the outcomes of a specific QI collaborative, the Empira Falls Prevention project in Minnesota, USA. Levels of electronic communication between collaborative members were found to be associated with a positive patient outcome, specifically a reduction in falls. Electronic and face-to-face communication differed in their association with success measures for the collaborative. The findings suggest that the two modes of communication can be leverage to attain maximum benefits from participating in a quality improvement collaborative.

Download Full-text