scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽  
Petra. J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background: Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative . A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool Results: The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions: This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritized determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this ways it helps to bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement initiatives led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne A. C. van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R. M. G. Fluit ◽  
Petra J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. Results The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritised determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this way it helps in bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽  
Petra. J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background: Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. Results: The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions: This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritized determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this ways it helps to bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽  
Petra. J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Quality Improvement Project ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
Healthcare Improvement ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background: Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of non-prioritised determinants. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers for healthcare improvement projects led by healthcare professionals, supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, a cross-sectional study was performed, using an online survey to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced during the performance of their quality improvement project. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts determined: 1) how healthcare professionals can be assisted to use our tool to analyse the determinants in their project and 2) how healthcare professionals can tackle the barriers or use the facilitators identified in their quality improvement project. Results: The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement projects. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the project was considered the biggest barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for better identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the project at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions: This paper describes a tool for performing quality improvement projects in healthcare, with the barriers and facilitators that were considered most important by healthcare professionals. For each of these barriers and facilitators, suggestions on how to analyse and address the determinant are given. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽  
Petra. J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Quality Improvement Project ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
Healthcare Improvement ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of non-prioritised determinants. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool to determine the prioritised facilitators and barriers for healthcare improvement projects led by healthcare professionals, supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. Methods A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, a cross-sectional study was performed, using an online survey to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced during the performance of their quality improvement project. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts determined: 1) how healthcare professionals can be assisted to use our tool to analyse the determinants in their project and 2) how healthcare professionals can tackle the barriers or use the facilitators identified in their quality improvement project. Results The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement projects. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the project was considered the biggest barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for better identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the project at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions This paper describes a tool for performing quality improvement projects in healthcare, with the barriers and facilitators that were considered most important by healthcare professionals. For each of these barriers and facilitators, suggestions on how to analyse and address the determinant are given. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Engagement with and delivery of the ‘parkrun practice initiative’ in general practice: a mixed methods study

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (697) ◽  
pp. e573-e580
Author(s):  
Joanna Fleming ◽  
Carol Bryce ◽  
Joanne Parsons ◽  
Chrissie Wellington ◽  
Jeremy Dale
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Improve Patient

BackgroundThe parkrun practice initiative, a joint collaboration between parkrun and the Royal College of General Practitioners, was launched to encourage general practices to improve the health and wellbeing of patients and staff through participating in local 5 km parkrun events. Why and how practices engage with the initiative is unknown.AimTo investigate engagement with and delivery of the parkrun practice initiative in general practice.Design and settingMixed methods study conducted from April–July 2019 comprising an online survey of all registered parkrun practices, and interviews and a focus group with practice staff in the West Midlands.MethodThe designated contacts at 780 registered parkrun practices were invited to complete an online survey. A purposive sample of parkrun practice staff and non-registered practice staff took part either in semi-structured interviews or a focus group, with transcripts analysed thematically.ResultsOf the total number of parkrun practices, 306 (39.2%) completed the survey. Sixteen practice staff (from nine parkrun practices and four non-registered practices) took part in either semi-structured interviews (n = 12) or a focus group (n = 4). Key motivators for becoming a parkrun practice were: to improve patient and staff health and wellbeing, and to become more engaged with the community and enhance practice image. Practices most commonly encouraged patients, carers, and staff to take part in parkrun and displayed parkrun flyers and posters. Challenges in implementing activities included lack of time (both personal and during consultations) and getting staff involved. Where staff did engage there were positive effects on morale and participation. Non-registered practices were receptive to the initiative, but had apprehensions about the commitment involved.ConclusionPractices were keen to improve patient and staff health. Addressing time constraints and staff support needs to be considered when implementing the initiative.

scholarly journals Perceived Burden Due to Registrations for Quality Monitoring and Improvement in Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marieke Zegers ◽  
Gepke L. Veenstra ◽  
Gerard Gerritsen ◽  
Rutger Verhage ◽  
Hans J.G. van der Hoeven ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Information And Communications Technology ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Perceived Burden ◽  
Joy In Work ◽  
Working Day ◽  
Care Of Elderly

Background: Quality indicators are registered to monitor and improve the quality of care. However, the number and effectiveness of quality indicators is under debate, and may influence the joy in work of physicians and nurses. Empirical data on the nature and consequences of the registration burden are lacking. The aim of this study was to identify and explore healthcare professionals’ perceived burden due to quality registrations in hospitals, and the effect of this burden on their joy in work. Methods: A mixed methods observational study, including participative observations, a survey and semi-structured interviews in two academic hospitals and one teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Study participants were 371 healthcare professionals from an intensive care unit (ICU), a haematology department and others involved in the care of elderly patients and patients with prostate or gastrointestinal cancer. Results: On average, healthcare professionals spend 52.3 minutes per working day on quality registrations. The average number of quality measures per department is 91, with 1380 underlying variables. Overall, 57% are primarily registered for accountability purposes, 19% for institutional governance and 25% for quality improvement objectives. Only 36% were perceived as useful for improving quality in everyday practice. Eight types of registration burden were identified, such as an excessive number of quality registrations, and the lack of usefulness for improving quality and inefficiencies in the registration process. The time healthcare professionals spent on quality registrations was not correlated with any measure of joy in work. Perceived unreasonable registrations were negatively associated with healthcare professionals’ joy in work (intrinsic motivation and autonomy). Healthcare professionals experienced quality registrations as diverting time from patient care and from actually improving quality. Conclusion: Registering fewer quality indicators, but more of what really matters to healthcare professionals, is key to increasing the effectiveness of registrations for quality improvement and governance. Also the efficiency of quality registrations should be increased through staffing and information and communications technology solutions to reduce the registration burden experienced by nurses and physicians.

scholarly journals Midwives’ experiences of caring for women with antenatal anxiety and depression: A qualitative study with midwifery acupuncturists

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee-Ana Lowe ◽  
Debra Betts
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Maternal Mental Health ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Antenatal Anxiety

Background: Pregnant women seek help for a range of physical and emotional pregnancy symptoms from traditional acupuncturists. Whether midwifery acupuncturists in Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa NZ) provide acupuncture for antenatal anxiety and depression (AAD) in practice is currently unknown. Aim: This qualitative arm of a mixed-methods study aimed to explore midwifery acupuncturist experiences of caring for pregnant women with AAD in Aotearoa NZ. The aim of the research was to examine the factors that influence midwifery acupuncturists' perceptions of acupuncture use for AAD. Method: This was a mixed-methods study involving an online survey and in-depth interviews from a convenience sample of Aotearoa NZ midwifery acupuncturists who had completed a Certificate of Midwifery Acupuncture. This paper describes the thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews. Findings: The eight interviewees were mostly NZ European (n=6) and Lead Maternity Carers (LMCs; n=6) caring for pregnant women in rural and urban locations throughout Aotearoa NZ. The interviews revealed an overarching theme, “helping midwives to navigate the ocean of AAD”, which identified the lack of support participants experienced from current maternity health services for AAD in Aotearoa NZ. Subthemes “Missing the boat during pregnancy” expressed how participants felt no options were available for AAD prevention, while “keeping women afloat with no ship in sight” represented how interviewees tried to keep women in their care stable even though access to maternal mental health services was difficult. Participants felt acupuncture was a useful non-pharmaceutical tool that works; however, they had reservations about “adding acupuncture to the midwifery toolbox”. Conclusion: Aotearoa NZ midwifery acupuncturists were concerned about AAD and the limited conventional options available for women in their care. Acupuncture was viewed as a promising adjunct to usual treatment for AAD. Reservations included adding acupuncture to an already heavy midwifery workload, the cost of acupuncture, and the appropriateness of the treatment.

scholarly journals Assessing the Potential for Integrating Routine Data Collection on Complementary Feeding to Child Health Visits: A Mixed-Methods Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Tully ◽  
Charlotte M. Wright ◽  
Deirdre McCormick ◽  
Ada L. Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Child Health ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Dietary Diversity ◽  
Family Health ◽  
Routine Data ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Routine Data Collection

There is no routine data collection in the UK on infant dietary diversity during the transition to solid foods, and health visitors (HVs) (nurses or midwives with specialist training in children and family health) have the potential to play a key role in nutrition surveillance. We aimed to assess items for inclusion in routine data collection, their suitability for collecting informative data, and acceptability among HVs. A mixed-methods study was undertaken using: (i) an online survey testing potential questionnaire items among parents/caregivers, (ii) questionnaire redevelopment in collaboration with community staff, and (iii) a survey pilot by HVs followed by qualitative data collection. Preliminary online questionnaires (n = 122) were collected to identify useful items on dietary diversity. Items on repeated exposure to foods, aversive feeding behaviors, flavor categories, and sugar intake were selected to correspond to nutrition recommendations, and be compatible with electronic records via tablet. HVs surveyed 187 parents of infants aged 12 months. Semi-structured interviews indicated that HVs found the questionnaire comparable with standard nutrition conversations, which prompted helpful discussions, but questions on eating behavior did not prompt such useful discussions and, in some cases, caused confusion about what was ‘normal.’ Lack of time among HVs, internet connectivity issues, and fear of losing rapport with parents were barriers to completing electronic questionnaires, with 91% submitted by paper. Routine nutrition data collection via child health records seems feasible and could inform quality improvement projects.

Habits-GDM mobile application in managing gestational diabetes in Singapore: A mixed-methods study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shilpa Surendran ◽  
Chang Siang Lim ◽  
Gerald Choon Huat Koh ◽  
Tong Wei Yew ◽  
E Shyong Tai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Automatic Data ◽  
Glucose Testing ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BACKGROUND The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing in Singapore and the cost of providing traditional care for GDM is high. Mobile health (mHealth) applications may act as useful tools in the management of GDM. OBJECTIVE The objective of this mixed-methods study was to measure the usage behaviour and explore users’ perceived usefulness of the Habits-GDM application when managing GDM in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS We conducted a quantitative analysis of the application usage behaviour in 170 Habits-GDM application users and 14 semi-structured interviews with users from a randomised controlled trial. RESULTS The convenience of automatic data transfer of weight values to the Habits-GDM application helped users (116/170, 68%) log their weight at least once a week. However, when the application had usability challenges, users avoided using that feature, i.e. users logged only an average of less than one meal/week out of the recommended six meals/week. Of the usability challenges, many users (12/14, 85.7%) mentioned food items not worded in the commonly known way and limited ethnic food database as the primary barriers. Only half of the users (84/170, 49.4%) accessed the educational lessons, but many (9/14, 64%) identified the provision of always available, valuable health-related information as an advantage of the educational lessons. ‘Healthy eating’ and ‘Why exercise’ were the most (56/84, 66.67%) and least (38/84, 45.24%) frequently accessed educational lessons, respectively. Users (10/14, 71.4%) reported sending messages to the coach via the chat interface only when they faced logistic issues and 86.45% of all the coach messages were replies typed by the research coordinator in response to the logistics issues (i.e. a request for blood glucose testing strips and appointment confirmation) raised by the users. Healthcare professionals lack of access to the coach’s dashboard discouraged users from asking queries related to GDM via the e-coaching feature. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that mHealth application acts as a useful tool in managing GDM. Culturally sensitive mHealth applications with a provision for women to interact with healthcare professionals should be developed in cooperation with the users. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document