Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36754540›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2023

Developing a tool to measure enactment of complex quality improvement interventions in healthcare.

Lauren MacEachern, Liane R Ginsburg, Matthias Hoben, Malcolm Doupe, Adrian Wagg, Jennifer A Knopp-Sihota, Lisa Cranley, Yuting Song, Carole A Estabrooks, Whitney Berta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Lauren MacEachernInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada lauren.maceachern@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8316-1878
Liane R GinsburgHealth Policy & Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Matthias HobenSchool of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3465-315X
Malcolm DoupeRady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Adrian WaggDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jennifer A Knopp-SihotaFaculty of Health Disciplines, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada.
Lisa CranleyLawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yuting SongFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6597-0567
Carole A EstabrooksFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Whitney BertaInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 201803PJT-400653-KTR-CEAA-107836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quality improvement (QI) projects are common in healthcare settings and often involve interdisciplinary teams working together towards a common goal. Many interventions and programmes have been introduced through research to convey QI skills and knowledge to healthcare workers, however, a few studies have attempted to differentiate between what individuals 'learn' or 'know' versus their capacity to apply their learnings in complex healthcare settings. Understanding and differentiating between delivery, receipt, and enactment of QI skills and knowledge is important because while enactment alone does not guarantee desired QI outcomes, it might be reasonably assumed that 'better enactment' is likely to lead to better outcomes. This paper describes the development, application and validation of a tool to measure enactment of core QI skills and knowledge of a complex QI intervention in a healthcare setting. Based on the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Model for Improvement, existing QI assessment tools, literature on enactment fidelity and our research protocols, 10 indicators related to core QI skills and knowledge were determined. Definitions and assessment criteria were tested and refined in five iterative cycles. Qualitative data from four QI teams in long-term care homes were used to test and validate the tool. The final measurement tool contains 10 QI indicators and a five-point scale. Inter-rater reliability ranged from good to excellent. Usability and acceptability among raters were considered high. This measurement tool assists in identifying strengths and weaknesses of a QI team and allows for targeted feedback on core QI components. The indicators developed in our tool and the approach to tool development may be useful in other health related contexts where similar data are collected.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality ImprovementData AccuracyHealth FacilitiesHumansReproducibility of ResultsEvaluation methodologyHealthcare quality improvementPDSAQualitative researchQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID36754540
PMCPMC9923287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.