Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32610820›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2022

A Board Level Intervention to Develop Organisation-Wide Quality Improvement Strategies: Cost-Consequences Analysis in 15 Healthcare Organisations.

Estela Capelas Barbosa, Lorelei Jones, Linda Pomeroy, Glenn Robert, Susan Burnett, Janet E Anderson, Steve Morris, Fulop Naomi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Estela Capelas BarbosaDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7621-7957
Lorelei JonesUniversity of Bangor, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7737-5981
Linda PomeroyDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Glenn RobertNational Nursing Research Unit, Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Susan BurnettCentre for Patient Safety and Service Quality, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Janet E AndersonFlorence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Steve MorrisDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Fulop NaomiDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5306-6140
University College London · GBKing's College London · GBBangor University · GBNational Patient Safety Foundation · USUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHospital boards have statutory responsibility for upholding the quality of care in their organisations. International research on quality in hospitals resulted in a research-based guide to help senior hospital leaders develop and implement quality improvement (QI) strategies, the QUASER Guide. Previous research has established a link between board practices and quality of care; however, to our knowledge, no board-level intervention has been evaluated in relation to its costs and consequences. The aim of this research was to evaluate these impacts when the QUASER Guide was implemented in an organisational development intervention (iQUASER).

methodsWe conducted a 'before and after' cost-consequences analysis (CCA), as part of a mixed methods evaluation. The analysis combined qualitative data collected from 66 interviews, 60 hours of board meeting observations and documents from 15 healthcare organisations, of which 6 took part on iQUASER, and included direct and opportunity costs associated with the intervention. The consequences focused on the development of an organisation-wide QI strategy, progress on addressing 8 dimensions of QI (the QUASER challenges), how organisations compared to benchmarks, engagement with the intervention and progress in the implementation of a QI project.

resultsWe found that participating organisations made greater progress in developing an organisation-wide QI strategy and became more similar to the high-performing benchmark than the comparators. However, progress in addressing all 8 QUASER challenges was only observed in one organisation. Stronger engagement with the intervention was associated with the implementation of a QI project. On average, iQUASER costed £23 496 per participating organisation, of which approximately 44% were staff time costs. Organisations that engaged less with the intervention had lower than average costs (£21 267 per organisation), but also failed to implement an organisation-wide QI project.

conclusionWe found a positive association between level of engagement with the intervention, development of an organisation-wide QI strategy and the implementation of an organisation-wide QI project. Support from the board, particularly the chair and chief executive, for participation in the intervention, is important for organisations to accrue most benefit. A board-level intervention for QI, such as iQUASER, is relatively inexpensive as a proportion of an organisation's budget.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality ImprovementHealth FacilitiesHospitalsHumansOrganizationsCost-ConsequenceNHSQuality ImprovementUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID32610820
PMCPMC9278604
OpenAlexW3034754303

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.