Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement initiatives led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study.
Determinants of practice
Healthcare professionals
Quality improvement
Tool development
Journal
Implementation science communications
ISSN: 2662-2211
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101764360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
19
02
2020
accepted:
07
10
2020
entrez:
28
10
2020
pubmed:
29
10
2020
medline:
29
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritised determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this way it helps in bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice.
METHODS
METHODS
A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritised determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this way it helps in bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33111063
doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00082-w
pii: 82
pmc: PMC7584081
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
92Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsHW, HC and PG have roles in the master’s programme on which the participants for this study are employed; HW was the former director of the master’s, HC is co-ordinator of the programme and PG is current director of the master’s. The master’s programme is partly financed by the Dutch Federation of University Medical Centers, which is the same organisation that financed this study. To ensure confidentiality of participants, identifying data about the individuals were only available to the main researcher AvT, who has no role in the master’s programme nor any association with the Dutch Federation of University Medical Centers.
Références
Acad Med. 2018 Dec;93(12):1784-1790
pubmed: 29901662
Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10:53
pubmed: 25895742
Implement Sci. 2019 Apr 29;14(1):42
pubmed: 31036028
Front Public Health. 2019 Jan 22;7:3
pubmed: 30723713
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Implement Sci. 2013 Dec 01;8:139
pubmed: 24289295
Health Care Manage Rev. 2013 Oct-Dec;38(4):325-38
pubmed: 22914176
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Jan;21(1):13-20
pubmed: 21835762
Implement Sci. 2013 Mar 23;8:35
pubmed: 23522377
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 23;5(12):e009993
pubmed: 26700290
Implement Sci. 2014 Aug 12;9:102
pubmed: 25112492
Implement Sci. 2015 Feb 12;10:21
pubmed: 25889199
Postgrad Med J. 2012 Jan;88(1035):1-4
pubmed: 22187489
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Dec;20(6):793-802
pubmed: 25130323
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2007 Spring;27(2):94-102
pubmed: 17576625
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 29;(4):CD005470
pubmed: 25923419
BMJ. 2009 Jan 19;338:a3152
pubmed: 19153129
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Oct;26(5):501-10
pubmed: 24951511
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 25;18(1):584
pubmed: 30045741
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 25;19(1):189
pubmed: 30909897
J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Apr;13(2):161-8
pubmed: 17378860
Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26
pubmed: 22310560