Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33267880›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Patient involvement in quality improvement - a 'tug of war' or a dialogue in a learning process to improve healthcare?

Carolina Bergerum, Agneta Kullén Engström, Johan Thor, Maria Wolmesjö

Abstract 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 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  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.

Carolina BergerumFaculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, S-501 90, Borås, Sweden. carolina.bergerum@hb.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1281-7918
Agneta Kullén EngströmFaculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, S-501 90, Borås, Sweden.
Johan ThorJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, P.O. Box 1026, S-55111, Jönköping, Sweden.
Maria WolmesjöFaculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, S-501 90, Borås, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-production and co-design approaches to quality improvement (QI) efforts are gaining momentum in healthcare. Yet, these approaches can be challenging, not least when it comes to patient involvement. The aim of this study was to examine what might influence QI efforts in which patients are involved, as experienced by the patients and the healthcare professionals involved.

methodsThis study involved a qualitative design inspired by the constructivist grounded theory. In one mid-sized Swedish hospital's patient process organisation, data was collected from six QI teams that involved patients in their QI efforts, addressing care paths for patients with transient, chronic and/or multiple parallel diagnoses. Field notes were collected from participant observations during 53 QI team meetings in three of the six patient processes. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 healthcare professionals in all the six QI teams.

resultsPatients were involved in QI efforts in different ways. In three of the QI teams, patient representatives attended team meetings regularly. One team consulted patient representatives on a single occasion, one team collected patient preferences structurally from individual interviews with patients, and one team combined interviews and a workshop with patients. The patients' and healthcare professionals' expressions of what might influence the QI efforts involving patients were similar in several ways. QI team members emphasized the importance of organisational structure and culture. Furthermore, they expressed a desire for ongoing interaction between patients and healthcare professionals in healthcare QI.

conclusionsQI team members recognised continuous dialogue and collective thinking by the sharing of experiences and preferences between patients and healthcare professionals as essential for achieving better matches between healthcare resources and patient needs in their QI efforts. Significant structural and cultural aspects of performing QI in complex hospital organisations were considered to be obstructions to progress. Therefore, to sustain learning and behaviour change through QI efforts at the team level, a deeper understanding of how structural and cultural aspects of QI promote or prevent success appears essential.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationQuality ImprovementHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansQuality of Health CareClinical microsystemCo-productionHealthcare organisationPatient involvementQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID33267880
PMCPMC7709309

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.