Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107762›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Starting continuous improvement; creating a common understanding of stroke care delivery in a general hospital.

Are Fjermeros, Geir Vegard Berg, Halvor Holtskog, Jos Benders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Are FjermerosNorway Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Teknologiveien 22, Gjøvik, 2802, Norway. are.fjermeros@sykehuset-innlandet.no.
Geir Vegard BergInnlandet Hospital Trust, Lillehammer, Norway.
Halvor HoltskogNorway Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Teknologiveien 22, Gjøvik, 2802, Norway.
Jos BendersNorway Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Alfred Getz vei 3, Gløshaugen, Trondheim, 7491, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous improvement is based on fostering practitioners' suggestions to modify their own work processes This improvement strategy is widely applied in healthcare but difficult to maintain. The cross-disciplinary nature of many care processes constitutes an extra impediment.

methodsThe study had an explorative design with a qualitative single-case approach. The case presents a project to improve the treatment of patients with thrombotic stroke. Data was obtained via hands on involvement, documents, observations, and interviews with participants in a cross-functional improvement group. A thematic analysis method was employed.

resultsThrough learning how tasks were carried out in other disciplines, the participants developed a common understanding of why it took so long to provide treatment to stroke patients. These insights were used to implement practical changes, leading to immediate improvements in stroke care delivery. The results were fed back so that successes became visible. Participants' understandings of the local context enabled them to convince peers of the rationale of changes, setting in motion a permanent improvement structure. The participants considered that mapping and then assessing the entire workflow across disciplines were relevant methods for improving the quality of patient care.

conclusionStarting an improvement project in a cross disciplinary environment requires deep engagement on the part of professionals. A quintessential prerequisite is therefore the realization that the quality of care depends on cross-disciplinary cooperation. A facilitated learning arena needs to (1) create insights into each other's colleagues' tasks and process interdependencies, (2) increase understanding of how the distribution of tasks among specialist units affects the quality of care, and (3) frequently report and provide feedback on results to keep the process going.

Indexed as

Hospitals, GeneralQuality ImprovementStrokeDelivery of Health CareHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchTotal Quality ManagementCross functionalDisciplinary improvementEnhanced coordination in hospitalsQuality improvementStroke care

Identifiers

PMID39107762
PMCPMC11304807

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.