Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33115494›Full record

ReviewHuman resources for health2020

Virtual adaptation of traditional healthcare quality improvement training in response to COVID-19: a rapid narrative review.

Zuneera Khurshid, Aoife De Brún, Gemma Moore, Eilish McAuliffe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human resources for health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  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
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Zuneera KhurshidUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Room B111, Dublin, Ireland. zuneera.khurshid@ucdconnect.ie.ORCID 0000-0002-4188-5533
Aoife De BrúnUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Gemma MooreNational Quality Improvement Team, Evidence for Improvement, Health Service Executive, Stewarts Hospital, Mill Lane, Palmerstown, Dublin, D20HY57, Ireland.
Eilish McAuliffeUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Health Research board Ireland RL-2015-1588Health Service Executive Ireland 57399
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation and communication technology are playing a major role in ensuring continuity of healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has also disrupted healthcare quality improvement (QI) training and education for healthcare professionals and there is a need to rethink the way QI training and education is delivered. The purpose of this rapid evidence review is to quickly, but comprehensively collate studies to identify what works and what does not in delivering QI training and education using distance learning modalities.

methodsThree healthcare databases were searched along with grey literature sources for studies published between 2015 and 2020. Studies with QI training programmes or courses targeting healthcare professionals and students with at least one component of the programme being delivered online were included.

resultsA total of 19 studies were included in the review. Most studies had a mixed methods design and used blended learning methods, combining online and in-person delivery modes. Most of the included studies reported achieving desired outcomes, including improved QI knowledge, skills and attitudes of participants and improved clinical outcomes for patients. Some benefits of online QI training delivery include fewer required resources, reduced need for on-site instructors, increased programme reach, and more control and flexibility over learning time for participants. Some limitations of online delivery modes include limited learning and networking opportunities, functional and technical problems and long lead time for content adaptation and customisation. DISCUSSION: The review highlights that distance learning approaches to QI help in overcoming barriers to traditional QI training. Some important considerations for those looking to adapt traditional programmes to virtual environments include balancing virtual and non-virtual methods, using suitable technological solutions, customising coaching support, and using multiple criteria for programme evaluation.

conclusionVirtual QI and training of healthcare professionals and students is a viable, efficient, and effective alternative to traditional QI education that will play a vital role in building their competence and confidence to improve the healthcare system in post-COVID environment.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Education, DistanceEducation, MedicalHealth PersonnelHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMedical educationOnline learningQuality improvementQuality improvement training

Identifiers

PMID33115494
PMCPMC7594275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.