Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31358685›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2020

Exploring the sustainability of quality improvement interventions in healthcare organisations: a multiple methods study of the 10-year impact of the 'Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care' programme in English acute hospitals.

Glenn Robert, Sophie Sarre, Jill Maben, Peter Griffiths, Rosemary Chable

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
22.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A cross-organizational Lean deployment in an Italian regional healthcare system.International journal of health care quality assurance · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Glenn RobertFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK glenn.robert@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8781-6675
Sophie SarreFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Jill MabenSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Peter GriffithsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Rosemary ChableTraining, Development & Workforce, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
King's College London · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/157/44
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 'Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care' programme is a quality improvement (QI) intervention introduced in English acute hospitals a decade ago to: (1) Increase time nurses spend in direct patient care. (2) Improve safety and reliability of care. (3) Improve experience for staff and patients. (4) Make changes to physical environments to improve efficiency.

objectiveTo explore how timing of adoption, local implementation strategies and processes of assimilation into day-to-day practice relate to one another and shape any sustained impact and wider legacies of a large-scale QI intervention.

designMultiple methods within six hospitals including 88 interviews (with Productive Ward leads, ward staff, Patient and Public Involvement representatives and senior managers), 10 ward manager questionnaires and structured observations on 12 randomly selected wards.

resultsResource constraints and a managerial desire for standardisation meant that, over time, there was a shift away from the original vision of empowering ward staff to take ownership of Productive Ward towards a range of implementation 'short cuts'. Nonetheless, material legacies (eg, displaying metrics data; storage systems) have remained in place for up to a decade after initial implementation as have some specific practices (eg, protected mealtimes). Variations in timing of adoption, local implementation strategies and contextual changes influenced assimilation into routine practice and subsequent legacies. Productive Ward has informed wider organisational QI strategies that remain in place today and developed lasting QI capabilities among those meaningfully involved in its implementation.

conclusionsAs an ongoing QI approach Productive Ward has not been sustained but has informed contemporary organisational QI practices and strategies. Judgements about the long-term sustainability of QI interventions should consider the evolutionary and adaptive nature of change processes.

Indexed as

CommunicationEfficiency, OrganizationalGuideline AdherenceHospital AdministrationHumansInservice TrainingLeadershipLongitudinal StudiesPatient SafetyPractice Guidelines as TopicProcess Assessment, Health CareQuality ImprovementState Medicinecontinuous quality improvementhealthcare quality improvementimplementation sciencequalitative researchquality improvement methodologies

Identifiers

PMID31358685
PMCPMC6934234
OpenAlexW2966128034

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.