Towards a Functional Model of Quality Improvement Collaboratives

Quality improvement collaboratives (QIC) are widely used for seeking improvements in healthcare quality and safety. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of QICs is variable. In order to support research that identifies critical elements in running a successful collaborative, we fill a conceptual gap by moving towards a functional model of QICs. Specifically, we define how QICs are distinct from traditional quality improvement teams, conceptualize how primary and secondary functions are accomplished in a means-ends framework, and illustrate how the functions are dynamically accomplished in a series of meetings by nested teams within a collaborative. Finally, we discuss distinctions among QICs.

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

Conclusion: the road ahead: where should we go now to improve healthcare quality in acute settings?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care ◽

10.1093/intqhc/mzz098 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 32 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 99-103 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jeffrey Braithwaite ◽

Natalie Taylor ◽

Robyn Clay-Williams ◽

Hsuen P Ting ◽

Gaston Arnolda

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Healthcare Quality ◽

Quality And Safety ◽

Future Studies ◽

The Road ◽

The Core ◽

Depth Analysis ◽

No Gold Standard ◽

Main Message ◽

Over Time

Abstract This final article in our 12-part series articulating a suite of quality improvement studies completes our report on the Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA) program of work. Here, we bring the Supplement’s key findings and contributions together, tying up loose ends. Traversing the DUQuA articles, we first argued the case for the research, conducted so that an in-depth analysis of one country’s health system, completed 5 years after the landmark Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE), was available. We now provide a digest of the learning from each article. Essentially, we have contributed an understanding of quality and safety activities in 32 of the largest acute settings in Australia, developed a series of scales and tools for use within Australia, modifiable for other purposes elsewhere, and provided a platform for future studies of this kind. Our main message is, despite the value of publishing an intense study of quality activities in 32 hospitals in one country, there is no gold standard, one-size-fits-all methodology or guarantee of success in quality improvement activities, whether the initiatives are conducted at departmental, organization-wide or whole-of-systems levels. Notwithstanding this, armed with the tools, scales and lessons from DUQuA, we hope we have provided many more options and opportunities for others going about strengthening their quality improvement activities, but we do not claim to have solved all problems or provided a definitive approach. In our view, quality improvement initiatives are perennially challenging, and progress hard-won. Effective measurement, evaluating progress over time, selecting a useful suite of quality methods and having the persistence to climb the improvement gradient over time, using all the expertise and tools available, is at the core of the work of quality improvement and will continue to be so.

Download Full-text

Towards a functional model of quality improvement collaboratives

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e577912012-022 ◽

2007 ◽

Author(s):

Emily S. Patterson ◽

Sharon Schweikhart ◽

Shilo Anders ◽

Suzanne Brungs ◽

Marta L. Render

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Functional Model ◽

Quality Improvement Collaboratives

Download Full-text

Hospital managers’ perspectives with implementing quality improvement measures and a new regulatory framework: a qualitative case study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042847 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e042847 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sina Furnes Øyri ◽

Geir Sverre Braut ◽

Carl Macrae ◽

Siri Wiig

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Adaptive Capacity ◽

Qualitative Content Analysis ◽

Regulatory Framework ◽

Local Context ◽

Quality And Safety ◽

Hospital Practice ◽

Hospital Managers ◽

Safety Improvement

A new regulatory framework to support local quality and safety efforts in hospitals was introduced to the Norwegian healthcare system in 2017. This study aimed to investigate hospital managers’ perspectives on implementation efforts and the resulting work practices, to understand if, and how, the new Quality Improvement Regulation influenced quality and safety improvement activities.DesignThis article reports one study level (the perspectives of hospital managers), as part of a multilevel case study. Data were collected by interviews and analysed according to qualitative content analysis.SettingThree hospitals retrieved from two regional health trusts in Norway.Participants20 hospital managers or quality advisers selected from different levels of hospital organisations.ResultsFour themes were identified in response to the study aim: (1) adaptive capacity in hospital management and practice, (2) implementation efforts and challenges with quality improvement, (3) systemic changes and (4) the potential to learn. Recent structural and cultural changes to, and development of, quality improvement systems in hospitals were discovered (3). Participants however, revealed no change in their practice solely due to the new Quality Improvement Regulation (2). Findings indicated that hospital managers are legally responsible for quality improvement implementation and participants described several benefits with the new Quality Improvement Regulation (2). This related to adaptation and flexibility to local context, and clinical autonomy as an inevitable element in hospital practice (1). Trust and a safe work environment were described as key factors to achieve adverse event reporting and support learning processes (4).ConclusionsThis study suggests that a lack of time, competence and/or motivation, impacted hospitals’ implementation of quality improvement efforts. Hospital managers’ autonomy and adaptive capacity to tailor quality improvement efforts were key for the new Quality Improvement Regulation to have any relevant impact on hospital practice and for it to influence quality and safety improvement activities.

Download Full-text