Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32654430›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of health policy and management2022

Perceived Burden Due to Registrations for Quality Monitoring and Improvement in Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study.

Marieke Zegers, Gepke L Veenstra, Gerard Gerritsen, Rutger Verhage, Hans J G van der Hoeven, Gera A Welker

Open access · diamondAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effects of Lean Interventions Supported by Digital Technologies on Healthcare Services: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marieke ZegersDepartment of Intensive Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7472-6184
Gepke L VeenstraCentre of Expertise on Quality and Safety, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9464-0943
Gerard GerritsenDepartment of Quality and Safety, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Rutger VerhageDepartment of Intensive Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hans J G van der HoevenDepartment of Intensive Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gera A WelkerCentre of Expertise on Quality and Safety, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLRijnstate Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality indicators are registered to monitor and improve the quality of care. However, the number and effectiveness of quality indicators is under debate, and may influence the joy in work of physicians and nurses. Empirical data on the nature and consequences of the registration burden are lacking. The aim of this study was to identify and explore healthcare professionals' perceived burden due to quality registrations in hospitals, and the effect of this burden on their joy in work.

methodsA mixed methods observational study, including participative observations, a survey and semi-structured interviews in two academic hospitals and one teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Study participants were 371 healthcare professionals from an intensive care unit (ICU), a haematology department and others involved in the care of elderly patients and patients with prostate or gastrointestinal cancer.

resultsOn average, healthcare professionals spend 52.3 minutes per working day on quality registrations. The average number of quality measures per department is 91, with 1380 underlying variables. Overall, 57% are primarily registered for accountability purposes, 19% for institutional governance and 25% for quality improvement objectives. Only 36% were perceived as useful for improving quality in everyday practice. Eight types of registration burden were identified, such as an excessive number of quality registrations, and the lack of usefulness for improving quality and inefficiencies in the registration process. The time healthcare professionals spent on quality registrations was not correlated with any measure of joy in work. Perceived unreasonable registrations were negatively associated with healthcare professionals' joy in work (intrinsic motivation and autonomy). Healthcare professionals experienced quality registrations as diverting time from patient care and from actually improving quality.

conclusionRegistering fewer quality indicators, but more of what really matters to healthcare professionals, is key to increasing the effectiveness of registrations for quality improvement and governance. Also the efficiency of quality registrations should be increased through staffing and information and communications technology solutions to reduce the registration burden experienced by nurses and physicians.

Indexed as

HospitalsPhysiciansAgedHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMotivationQuality ImprovementSurveys and QuestionnairesHospitalQuality ImprovementQuality IndicatorsRegistration BurdenWork Motivation

Identifiers

PMID32654430
PMCPMC9278598
OpenAlexW3039470779

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.