Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32641038›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Inspecting teams' and organisations' expectations regarding external inspections in health care: a qualitative study.

Einar Hovlid, Inger Lise Teig, Kjersti Halvorsen, Jan C Frich

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Einar HovlidDepartment of Social Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 133, 6851, Sogndal, Norway. Einar.hovlid@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0300-4405
Inger Lise TeigDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7800, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
Kjersti HalvorsenDepartment of Social Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 133, 6851, Sogndal, Norway.
Jan C FrichInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1078, 0316, Oslo, Norway.
Norwegian Directorate of Health · NOUniversity of Bergen · NOUniversity of Oslo · NOWestern Norway University of Applied Sciences · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a gap in the literature regarding what takes place between the announcement of a regulatory intervention, such as an external inspection of a health care organisation, and the inspecting body's site visit. This study aimed to explore inspecting bodies' expectations of how inspected organisations should prepare before an external inspection and to elucidate how inspected health care organisations prepare before site visits.

methodsThis qualitative study was based on data from 17 group interviews with a total of 75 participants representing inspection teams, organisation leaders and clinicians in inspected health care organisations. The data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis method.

resultsWe identified two approaches to how the inspection teams expected that the inspected organisations should prepare before site visits. In the first approach the inspection teams did not expect any improvement activities to be initiated during this period and focused on identifying inadequacies that the inspected organisations should subsequently improve. In the second approach the inspection teams expected organisations to review their own practices and begin improvement activities if necessary. The inspected organisations responded in different ways to an upcoming site visit, and the organisations' leaders were important in determining which activities would be initiated. Organisations in which leaders involved clinicians in assessing care delivery tended to initiate action to improve and expected inspection teams to assess their ongoing improvement work and provide guidance on further improvements. Leaders who did not involve clinicians in assessing the quality of care tended to perceive the current quality of care as adequate on the basis of reviewing written guidelines. They did not initiate action to improve care delivery apart from updating written guidelines describing how care should be delivered, and they expected the inspection team to confirm that their current practices were in line with the guidelines and external standards.

conclusionsTo promote anticipatory effects in inspected organisations, inspecting bodies should stress the importance of assessing clinical practice and involving frontline clinical staff and leaders in the assessment and in improvement work before the site visit.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansLeadershipMaleMotivationQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementExternal inspectionOrganisational changeQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID32641038
PMCPMC7346447
OpenAlexW3040905744

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.