Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29624136›Full record

ArticleJournal of health organization and management2018

How hospital survey teams function.

Alan Boyd, Shilpa Ross, Ruth Robertson, Kieran Walshe, Rachael Smithson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health organization and management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. User involvement in regulation: A qualitative study of service user involvement in Care Quality Commission inspections of health and social care providers in England.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
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

5 authors.

Alan BoydAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester , Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6955-7611
Shilpa RossThe King's Fund, London, UK.
Ruth RobertsonThe King's Fund, London, UK.
Kieran WalsheAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester , Manchester, UK.
Rachael SmithsonThe King's Fund, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how inspection team members work together to conduct surveys of hospitals, the challenges teams may face and how these might be addressed. Design/methodology/approach Data were gathered through an evaluation of a new regulatory model for acute hospitals in England, implemented by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) during 2013-2014. The authors interviewed key stakeholders, observed inspections and surveyed and interviewed inspection team members and hospital staff. Common characteristics of temporary teams provided an analytical framework. Findings The temporary nature of the inspection teams hindered the conduct of some inspection activities, despite the presence of organisational citizenship behaviours. In a minority of sub-teams, there were tensions between CQC employed inspectors, healthcare professionals, lay people and CQC data analysts. Membership changes were infrequent and did not appear to inhibit team functioning, with members displaying high commitment. Although there were leadership authority ambiguities, these were not problematic. Existing processes of recruitment and selection, training and preparation and to some extent leadership, did not particularly lend themselves to addressing the challenges arising from the temporary nature of the teams. Research limitations/implications Conducting the research during the piloting of the new regulatory approach may have accentuated some challenges. There is scope for further research on inspection team leadership. Practical implications Issues may arise if inspection and accreditation agencies deploy temporary, heterogeneous survey teams. Originality/value This research is the first to illuminate the functioning of inspection survey teams by applying a temporary teams perspective.

Indexed as

Health Care SurveysAccreditationEnglandHospitals, PublicInterviews as TopicLeadershipModels, OrganizationalQualitative ResearchState MedicineAccreditationHeterogeneityHospitalsInspectionTeamworkTemporary teams

Identifiers

PMID29624136
PMCPMC5925851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.