TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluating quality improvement at scale
T2 - A pilot study on routine reporting for executive board governance in a UK National Health Service organisation
AU - Chua, Kia Chong
AU - Henderson, Claire
AU - Grey, Barbara
AU - Holland, Michael
AU - Sevdalis, Nick
N1 - Funding Information:
NS’ research is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. NS and KC are members of King's Improvement Science, which is part of NIHR ARC South London and is based at King's College London. Its work is funded by King's Health Partners (Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), and Guy's and St Thomas’ Charity. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the charities, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Funding Information:
NS’ research is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust . NS and KC are members of King’s Improvement Science, which is part of NIHR ARC South London and is based at King’s College London. Its work is funded by King’s Health Partners (Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust) , and Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity . The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the charities, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors
PY - 2023/4
Y1 - 2023/4
N2 - Background: Quality improvement (QI) in healthcare is a cultural transformation process. We explored how routine reporting could be developed to aid visibility of the process for QI governance. Method: A retrospective evaluation of QI projects in a large healthcare organisation was conducted. We used an online survey so that the data accrual process resembled routine reporting to help identify implementation challenges. A purposive sample of QI projects was targeted to maximise contrast between projects that were or were not successful as determined by the resident QI team. To hone strategic focus in what should be reported, we also compared factors that might affect project outcomes. Results: Out of 52 QI projects, 10 led to a change in routine practice (‘adoption’). Details of project outcomes were limited. Project team outcomes, indicative of capacity building, were not systematically documented. Service user involvement, quality of measurement plan, fidelity of plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles had a major impact on adoption. Conclusion: Designing a routine reporting framework requires an iterative process to navigate data accrual demands. A retrospective evaluation, as in this study, can yield empirical insights to support development of QI governance, thereby honing the implementation science of QI in a healthcare organisation.
AB - Background: Quality improvement (QI) in healthcare is a cultural transformation process. We explored how routine reporting could be developed to aid visibility of the process for QI governance. Method: A retrospective evaluation of QI projects in a large healthcare organisation was conducted. We used an online survey so that the data accrual process resembled routine reporting to help identify implementation challenges. A purposive sample of QI projects was targeted to maximise contrast between projects that were or were not successful as determined by the resident QI team. To hone strategic focus in what should be reported, we also compared factors that might affect project outcomes. Results: Out of 52 QI projects, 10 led to a change in routine practice (‘adoption’). Details of project outcomes were limited. Project team outcomes, indicative of capacity building, were not systematically documented. Service user involvement, quality of measurement plan, fidelity of plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles had a major impact on adoption. Conclusion: Designing a routine reporting framework requires an iterative process to navigate data accrual demands. A retrospective evaluation, as in this study, can yield empirical insights to support development of QI governance, thereby honing the implementation science of QI in a healthcare organisation.
KW - Governance
KW - Quality Improvement
KW - Routine reporting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85145265935&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102222
DO - 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102222
M3 - Article
C2 - 36586303
AN - SCOPUS:85145265935
SN - 0149-7189
VL - 97
JO - EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING
JF - EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING
M1 - 102222
ER -
