healthcare quality improvement
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

94
(FIVE YEARS 45)

H-INDEX

14
(FIVE YEARS 8)

Author(s):  
Rachel R. J. Kalf ◽  
Marloes Zuidgeest ◽  
Diana M. J. Delnoij ◽  
Marcel L. Bouvy ◽  
Wim G. Goettsch

Abstract Objective Although health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare quality improvement are distinct processes, a greater level of alignment in outcome measures used may increase the quality and efficiency of data collection. This study evaluates the agreement in outcome measures used in oncology for healthcare quality improvement and HTAs, and how these align to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard sets. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional comparative analysis of ICHOM sets focusing on oncological indications and publicly available measures for healthcare quality and HTA reports published by the National Health Care Institute from the Netherlands and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence from the United Kingdom. Results All ICHOM sets and HTAs used overall survival, whereas quality improvement used different survival estimates. Different progression estimates for cancer were used in HTAs, ICHOM sets, and quality improvement. Data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was recommended in all ICHOM sets and all HTAs, but selectively for quality improvement. In HTAs, generic HRQoL questionnaires were preferred, whereas, in quality improvement and ICHOM sets, disease-specific questionnaires were recommended. Unfavorable outcomes were included in all HTAs and all ICHOM sets, but not always for quality improvement. Conclusions Although HTA and quality improvement use outcome measures from the same domains, a greater level of alignment seems possible. ICHOM may provide input on standardized outcome measures to support this alignment. However, residual discrepancies will remain due to the different objectives of HTA and quality improvement.


2021 ◽  
pp. bmjqs-2020-012729
Author(s):  
Ruth Cox ◽  
Matthew Molineux ◽  
Melissa Kendall ◽  
Bernadette Tanner ◽  
Elizabeth Miller

BackgroundInternationally, patient and public involvement (PPI) is core policy for health service quality improvement (QI). However, authentic QI partnerships are not commonplace. A lack of patient and staff capability to deliver successful partnerships may be a barrier to meaningful QI collaboration.ObjectivesThe research questions for this scoping review were: What is known regarding the capabilities required for healthcare staff and patients to effectively partner in QI at the service level?; and What is known regarding the best practice learning and development strategies required to build and support those capabilities?MethodsA six-stage scoping review was completed. Five electronic databases were searched for publications from January 2010 to February 2020. The database searches incorporated relevant terms for the following concepts: capabilities for PPI in healthcare QI; and best practice learning and development strategies to support those capabilities. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.ResultsForty-nine papers were included. Very little peer-reviewed literature focused explicitly on capabilities for QI partnerships and thus implicit paper content was analysed. A Capability framework for successful partnerships in healthcare quality improvement was developed. It includes knowledge, skills and attitudes across three capability domains: Personal Attributes; Relationships and Communication; and Philosophies, Models and Practices, and incorporates 10 capabilities. Sharing power and leadership was discussed in many papers as fundamental and was positioned across all of the domains. Most papers discussed staff and patients’ co-learning (n=28, 57.14%). Workshops or shorter structured training sessions (n=36, 73.47%), and face-to-face learning (n=34, 69.38%) were frequently reported.ConclusionThe framework developed here could guide individualised development or learning plans for patient partners and staff, or could assist organisations to review learning topics and approaches such as training content, mentoring guidelines or community of practice agendas. Future directions include refining and evaluating the framework. Development approaches such as self-reflection, communities of practice, and remote learning need to be expanded and evaluated.


2021 ◽  
pp. medhum-2020-012129
Author(s):  
Alan Cribb ◽  
Vikki Entwistle ◽  
Polly Mitchell

In this paper, we consider the role of conversations in contributing to healthcare quality improvement. More specifically, we suggest that conversations can be important in responding to what we call ‘normative complexity’. As well as reflecting on the value of conversations, the aim is to introduce the dimension of normative complexity as something that requires theoretical and practical attention alongside the more recognised challenges of complex systems, which we label, for short, as ‘explanatory complexity’. In brief, normative complexity relates to the inherent difficulty of deciding what kinds of changes are ‘improvements’ or, more broadly, what is valuable in healthcare. We suggest that explanatory and normative complexity intersect and that anyone interested in healthcare improvement needs to be sensitive to both. After briefly introducing the idea of normative complexity, we consider some contrasting examples of conversations, reflecting on how they do and might contribute to healthcare quality. We discuss both conversations that are deliberately organised and facilitated (‘orchestrated conversations’) and more informally occurring and routine conversations. In the first half of the paper, we draw on some examples of orchestrated and routine conversations to open up these issues. In the second half of the paper, we bring some more theoretical lenses to bear on both conversations and normative complexity, summarise what we take to be the value of conversations and draw together some of the implications of our discussion. In summary, we argue that conversations can play a crucial role in negotiating the normative complexity of healthcare quality improvement because of their capacity to hold together a plurality of perspectives, to contribute and respond to emergence and to help underpin institutional conditions for empathy and imagination.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 62-78
Author(s):  
Denice Reese ◽  
Mary A Dolansky ◽  
Shirley M Moore ◽  
Heather Bolden ◽  
Mamta K Singh

Background Massive open online courses have the potential to enable dissemination of essential components of quality improvement learning. Subsequent to conducting the massive open online course ‘Take the Lead on Healthcare Quality Improvement’, this paper is a report of the evaluation of the course’s effectiveness in increasing healthcare professionals’ quality improvement knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and systems thinking. Methods Using the Kirkpatrick model for evaluation, a pretest–posttest design was employed to measure quality improvement knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy and systems thinking. Interprofessional learners across the globe enrolled in the 5-week online course that consisted of 10 modules (short theory bursts, assignments and assessments). The objective of the course was to facilitate learners’ completion of a personal or clinical project. Of the 5751 learners enrolled, 1415 completed the demographic survey, and 88 completed all the surveys, assignments and assessments. This paper focuses on the 88 who completed the course. Results There was a significant 14% increase in knowledge, a 3.5% increase in positive attitude, a 3.9% increase in systems thinking and a 21% increase in self-efficacy. Learners were very satisfied with the course (8.9/10). Conclusions Learners who completed the course ‘Take the Lead on Healthcare Quality Improvement’ had significant gains in learner outcomes: quality improvement knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy and systems thinking supporting this course format’s efficacy in improving key components of students’ quality improvement capabilities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e001104
Author(s):  
Pamela Mathura ◽  
Miriam Li ◽  
Natalie McMurtry ◽  
Narmin Kassam

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document