Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31727069›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Make it complicated: a qualitative study utilizing a complexity framework to explain improvement in health care.

Marie Höjriis Storkholm, Pamela Mazzocato, Carl Savage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Processual Validity in Qualitative Research in Healthcare.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Marie Höjriis StorkholmDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pamela MazzocatoDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Carl SavageDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. carl.savage@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2836-903X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccessful application of Quality Improvement (QI) methods is challenging, and awareness of the role context plays has increased. Complexity science has been advocated as a way to inform change efforts. However, empirical support is scarce, and it is still difficult to grasp the practical implications for QI interventions. The aim of this study was to use a complexity-based leadership framework to explain how managers in a clinical department addressed external requirements to cut costs without compromising patient outcomes and experience.

methodsExplanatory case study design of a Danish OB/GYN department tasked to improve efficiency. Data came from documents, 30 interviews, and 250 h of observations over 3 years. A Complexity Analysis Framework that combined two complexity-based leadership frameworks was developed to analyze all changes implemented to reduce cost, while maintaining clinical quality.

resultsManagers reframed the efficiency requirement as an opportunity for quality improvement. Multiple simple, complicated, and complex situations were addressed with an adaptive approach to quality improvement. Changes were made to clinical pathways for individual conditions (n = 37), multiple conditions (n = 7), and at the organizational level (n = 9). At the organizational level, changes addressed referral practice, physical space in the department, flow and capacity, discharge speed, and managerial support. Managers shared responsibility with staff; together they took a "professional path" and systematically analyzed each clinical pathway through process mapping, attentive to patterns that emerged, before deciding on the next steps, such as a engaging in a complex process of probing - the iterative development and testing of new responses.

conclusionsQuality improvement efforts could benefit from an understanding of the importance of learning and sharing responsibility to deal with the co-existing degrees of contextual complexity in modern health care. By "making things complicated" through a systematic analysis that engages staff in an open and reflective dialog, clinical praxis and established organizational structures can be questioned and improved. The Complexity Analysis Framework could then help managers to identify improvement opportunities, know when to implement technical solutions, and when to keep abreast of emerging patterns and allow appropriate responses to complex challenges to evolve.

Indexed as

Systems AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementChange managementComplexity scienceObstetrics and gynecologyProcess mappingQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31727069
PMCPMC6857274

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.