Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37307058›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Involving Health Professionals in the Development of Quality and Safety Dashboards: Qualitative Study.

Frank Christian van de Baan, Stijn Lambregts, Esther Bergman, Jasper Most, Daan Westra

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Frank Christian van de BaanDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8085-0245
Stijn LambregtsDepartment of Quality, Safety and Quality Improvement, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8642-8400
Esther BergmanDepartment of Research, Zuyderland Academy, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2759-7033
Jasper MostDepartment of Orthopaedics, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8591-5629
Daan WestraDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1791-3626
Zuyderland Medisch Centrum · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDashboards are an important tool for hospitals to improve quality and safety performance. However, implementing quality and safety dashboards often does not increase performance due to a lack of use by health professionals. Including health professionals in the development process of quality and safety dashboards can improve their use in practice. Yet, it remains unclear how a development process involving health professionals can be executed successfully.

objectiveThe aim of this study is twofold: (1) to delineate how a process whereby health professionals are included in the development of quality and safety dashboards can be facilitated and (2) to identify the factors that are important to consider in order to make that process successful.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative, in-depth exploratory case study in which we analyzed 150 pages of internal documents and interviewed 13 staff members regarding the development of quality and safety dashboards within 2 care pathways of a hospital that has experience in such development. The data were analyzed inductively using the constant comparative method.

resultsWe found that the development of quality and safety dashboards in collaboration with health professionals was facilitated through a five-stage process: (1) familiarizing participants with dashboards and the development process; (2) brainstorming about potential indicators to be included in the dashboard; (3) prioritizing, defining, and selecting indicators to be included in the dashboard; (4) examining how the indicators can be visualized; and (5) implementing the dashboard and following up on its use. To enhance the success of the process, 3 factors were deemed important. The first is to create and maintain broad involvement, ensuring that various professions are represented and take ownership of the dashboard. Here, potential barriers include gaining engagement from peers not directly involved in the process and maintaining involvement after the initial implementation of the dashboard. Second, unburdening, whereby quality and safety staff facilitate a structured process that has little additional burden for professionals. For this, time management and a lack of collaboration with departments responsible for delivering the data might be an issue. Lastly, focusing on relevance for health professionals, which refers to the inclusion of indicators with value for health professionals. For this factor, a lack of consensus on how indicators should be defined and registered might be a barrier.

conclusionsHealth care organizations seeking to develop quality and safety dashboards in collaboration with health professionals can use a 5-stage process. To enhance the success of the process, organizations are advised to focus on 3 key factors. For each of the key factors, potential barriers should be taken into account. Engaging in this process and attaining the key factors could increase the likelihood that the dashboards are used in practice.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelHospitalsConsensusHumansOwnershipPeer Groupconstant comparative methoddashboardfeedbackhealth care professionalhealth care providerinnovationopinionperspectivequalitativequality improvementuser involvement

Identifiers

PMID37307058
PMCPMC10337379
OpenAlexW4380290869

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.