Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26590198›Full record

SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2016

What methods are used to apply positive deviance within healthcare organisations? A systematic review.

Ruth Baxter, Natalie Taylor, Ian Kellar, Rebecca Lawton

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ruth BaxterSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, UK Quality and Safety Research Group, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Natalie TaylorQuality and Safety Research Group, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ian KellarSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, UK Quality and Safety Research Group, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Rebecca LawtonSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, UK Quality and Safety Research Group, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe positive deviance approach focuses on those who demonstrate exceptional performance, despite facing the same constraints as others. 'Positive deviants' are identified and hypotheses about how they succeed are generated. These hypotheses are tested and then disseminated within the wider community. The positive deviance approach is being increasingly applied within healthcare organisations, although limited guidance exists and different methods, of varying quality, are used. This paper systematically reviews healthcare applications of the positive deviance approach to explore how positive deviance is defined, the quality of existing applications and the methods used within them, including the extent to which staff and patients are involved.

methodsPeer-reviewed articles, published prior to September 2014, reporting empirical research on the use of the positive deviance approach within healthcare, were identified from seven electronic databases. A previously defined four-stage process for positive deviance in healthcare was used as the basis for data extraction. Quality assessments were conducted using a validated tool, and a narrative synthesis approach was followed.

results37 of 818 articles met the inclusion criteria. The positive deviance approach was most frequently applied within North America, in secondary care, and to address healthcare-associated infections. Research predominantly identified positive deviants and generated hypotheses about how they succeeded. The approach and processes followed were poorly defined. Research quality was low, articles lacked detail and comparison groups were rarely included. Applications of positive deviance typically lacked staff and/or patient involvement, and the methods used often required extensive resources.

conclusionFurther research is required to develop high quality yet practical methods which involve staff and patients in all stages of the positive deviance approach. The efficacy and efficiency of positive deviance must be assessed and compared with other quality improvement approaches. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009365.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchQuality of Health CareDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationPatient SafetyQuality ImprovementSafety ManagementUnited StatesHealthcare quality improvementHealth services researchImplementation scienceQuality improvementQuality improvement methodologies

Identifiers

PMID26590198
PMCPMC4789698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.