ArticleBMJ open quality2022
Establishing and evaluating a quality improvement collaborative to address hospital to home transitions for older people.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHospital use increases with age. Older people and their families have reported poor experiences of care at the time of discharge home from hospital. As part of a larger project, we established and evaluated a quality improvement collaborative to address hospital to home transitions for older people.
methodsWe convened an expert panel of 34 stakeholders to identify modifiable issues in the hospital-home transition period. We established a collaborative involving health professionals across a range of agencies working to common goals. Teams were supported by a network manager, three learning sessions and quality improvement methodology to address their identified area for improvement. We used mixed methods to evaluate whether the establishment of the quality improvement collaborative built networks, built capacity in the health professionals and improved the quality of care for older people. Evaluation methods included interviews, surveys, network mapping and case studies.
resultsNine teams (n=41 participants) formed the collaborative and attended all meetings. Mapping showed an increase in networks between participants and organisations at the conclusion of the collaborative. Interview data showed that building relationships across services was one of the most important parts of the collaborative. Survey results revealed that most (77%) believed their quality improvement skills had developed through participation. Advice and regular meetings to progress project work were considered important in ensuring teams stayed focused. In terms of improving the quality of care, some participants indicated that they achieved the stated aims of their project better than expected (21%), most (41%) felt they achieved their aim as expected, 26% got close to their aim and the rest did not know the outcome (13%).
conclusionsEstablishing a quality improvement collaborative was a positive activity in terms of building a network across organisations and progressing quality improvement projects which aimed to achieve the same overall goal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.