Coaching, Consultation and On-site Quality Improvement: Results from Recent Research

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Forry ◽  
Kathryn Tout ◽  
Martha Zaslow ◽  
Ivelisse Martinez-Beck
2016 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. S438-S439
Author(s):  
Elena Fradkov ◽  
Alexander Goldowsky ◽  
Kirsten Quiles ◽  
Renee Williams

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Kelly ◽  
Anna Higgins ◽  
Adrian Murphy ◽  
Karen McCreesh

Abstract BackgroundIn response to issues with timely access and high non-attendance rates for Emergency Department (ED) physiotherapy, a telephone assessment and advice service was evaluated as part of a quality improvement project. This telehealth option requires minimal resources, with the added benefit of allowing the healthcare professional streamline care. A primary aim was to investigate whether this service model can reduce wait times and non-attendance rates, compared to usual care. A secondary aim was to evaluate service user acceptability.MethodsThis was a single-site quality improvement cohort study that compares data on wait time to first physiotherapy contact, non-attendance rates and participant satisfaction between patients that opted for a service based on initial telephone assessment and advice, versus routine face-to-face appointments. 116 patients were referred for ED physiotherapy over the 3-month pilot at the ED and out-patient physiotherapy department, X, Ireland. 91 patients (78%) opted for the telephone assessment and advice service, with 40% (n=36) contacting the service. 25 patients (22%) opted for the face-to-face service. Data on wait time and non-attendance rates was gathered using the hospital data reporting system. Satisfaction data was collected on discharge using a satisfaction survey adapted from the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire. Independent-samples t-test or Mann Whitney U Test was utilised depending on the distribution of the data. For categorical data, Chi-Square tests were performed. A level of significance of p ≤ 0.05 was set for this study.ResultsThose that contacted the telephone assessment and advice service had a significantly reduced wait time (median 6 days; 3 – 8 days) compared to those that opted for usual care (median 35 days; 19 – 39 days) (p ≤ 0.05). There was no significant between-group differences for non-attendance rates or satisfaction.ConclusionA telephone assessment and advice service may be useful in minimising delays for advice for those referred to ED Physiotherapy for musculoskeleltal problems. This telehealth option appears to be broadly acceptable and since it can be introduced rapidly, it may be helpful in triaging referrals and minimising face-to-face consultations, in line with COVID-19 recommendations. However, a large scale randomised controlled trial is warranted to confirm these findings.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 1471-1474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne C. Taylor ◽  
Katherine E. Bates ◽  
Alaina K. Kipps

AbstractLimited evidence exists to guide chest tube management following cardiac surgery in children. We assessed chest tube practice variation by surveying paediatric heart centres to prepare for a multi-site quality improvement project. We summarised management strategies highlighting variability in criteria for chest tube removal between and within centres. This lack of standardisation provides an opportunity for quality improvement.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Kelly ◽  
Anna Higgins ◽  
Adrian Murphy ◽  
Karen McCreesh

Abstract Background In response to issues with timely access and high non-attendance rates for Emergency Department (ED) physiotherapy, a telephone assessment and advice service was evaluated as part of a quality improvement project. This telehealth option requires minimal resources, with the added benefit of allowing the healthcare professional streamline care. A primary aim was to investigate whether this service model can reduce wait times and non-attendance rates, compared to usual care. A secondary aim was to evaluate service user acceptability. Methods This was a single-site quality improvement cohort study that compares data on wait time to first physiotherapy contact, non-attendance rates and participant satisfaction between patients that opted for a service based on initial telephone assessment and advice, versus routine face-to-face appointments. 116 patients were referred for ED physiotherapy over the 3-month pilot at the ED and out-patient physiotherapy department, XMercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. 91 patients (78%) opted for the telephone assessment and advice service, with 40% (n=36) contacting the service. 25 patients (22%) opted for the face-to-face service. Data on wait time and non-attendance rates was gathered using the hospital data reporting system. Satisfaction data was collected on discharge using a satisfaction survey adapted from the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire. Independent-samples t-test or Mann Whitney U Test was utilised depending on the distribution of the data. For categorical data, Chi-Square tests were performed. A level of significance of p ≤ 0.05 was set for this study. Results Those that contacted the telephone assessment and advice service had a significantly reduced wait time (median 6 days; 3–8 days) compared to those that opted for usual care (median 35 days; 19–39 days) (p ≤ 0.05). There was no significant between-group differences for non-attendance rates or satisfaction. Conclusion A telephone assessment and advice service may be useful in minimising delays for advice for those referred to ED Physiotherapy for musculoskeleltal problems. This telehealth option appears to be broadly acceptable and since it can be introduced rapidly, it may be helpful in triaging referrals and minimising face-to-face consultations, in line with COVID-19 recommendations. However, a large scale randomised controlled trial is warranted to confirm these findings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 268-268
Author(s):  
Eric De Leon ◽  
Oscar Enriquez ◽  
Debra Rodriguez ◽  
Eric Higginbotham ◽  
Elizabeth Fredeboelling ◽  
...  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 142 (1) ◽  
pp. e20171395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry C. Lee ◽  
Mihoko V. Bennett ◽  
Margaret Crockett ◽  
Ruth Crowe ◽  
Steven G. Gwiazdowski ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document