Quality collaboratives: lessons from research

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 01/2003; 11(4):345-51. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.345
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Quality improvement collaboratives are increasingly being used in many countries to achieve rapid improvements in health care. However, there is little independent evidence that they are more cost effective than other methods, and little knowledge about how they could be made more effective. A number of systematic evaluations are being performed by researchers in North America, the UK, and Sweden. This paper presents the shared ideas from two meetings of these researchers. The evidence to date is that some collaboratives have stimulated improvements in patient care and organisational performance, but there are significant differences between collaboratives and teams. The researchers agreed on the possible reasons why some were less successful than others, and identified 10 challenges which organisers and teams need to address to achieve improvement. In the absence of more conclusive evidence, these guidelines are likely to be useful for collaborative organisers, teams and their managers and may also contribute to further research into collaboratives and the spread of innovations in health care.

Download full-text


Available from: Glenn Robert, Jun 17, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop an instrument to measure organizational attributes relevant for family practices using the perspectives of clinicians, nurses, and staff. Clinicians, nurses, and office staff (n=640) from 51 community family medicine practices. A survey, designed to measure a practices' internal resources for change, for use in family medicine practices was created by a multidisciplinary panel of experts in primary care research and health care organizational performance. This survey was administered in a cross-sectional study to a sample of diverse practices participating in an intervention trial. A factor analysis identified groups of questions relating to latent constructs of practices' internal resources for capacity to change. ANOVA methods were used to confirm that the factors differentiated practices. The survey was administered to all staff from 51 practices. The factor analysis resulted in four stable and internally consistent factors. Three of these factors, "communication,"decision-making," and "stress/chaos," describe resources for change in primary care practices. One factor, labeled "history of change," may be useful in assessing the success of interventions. A 21-item questionnaire can reliably measure four important organizational attributes relevant to family practices. These attributes can be used both as outcome measures as well as important features for targeting system interventions.
    Health Services Research 07/2007; 42(3 Pt 1):1257-73. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00644.x · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The challenges of implementing evidence-based practice are complex and varied. Against this background a framework has been developed to represent the multiple factors that may influence the implementation of evidence into practice. It is proposed that successful implementation is dependent upon the nature of the evidence being used, the quality of context, and, the type of facilitation required to enable the change process. This study sets out to scrutinize the elements of the framework through empirical enquiry. The aim of the study was to address the following questions: * What factors do practitioners identify as the most important in enabling implementation of evidence into practice? * What are the factors practitioners identify that mediate the implementation of evidence into practice? * Do the concepts of evidence, context and facilitation constitute the key elements of a framework for getting evidence into practice? The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: Exploratory focus groups (n = 2) were conducted to inform the development of an interview guide. This was used with individual key informants in case study sites. Phase 2: Two sites with on-going or recent implementation projects were studied. Within sites semi-structured interviews were conducted (n = 17). A number of key issues in relation to the implementation of evidence into practice emerged including: the nature and role of evidence, relevance and fit with organizational and practice issues, multi-professional relationships and collaboration, role of the project lead and resources. The results are discussed with reference to the wider literature and in relation to the on-going development of the framework. Crucially the growing body of evidence reveals that a focus on individual approaches to implementing evidence-based practice, such as skilling-up practitioners to appraise research evidence, will be ineffective by themselves. Key elements that require attention in implementing evidence into practice are presented and may provide a useful checklist for future implementation and evaluation projects.
    Journal of Clinical Nursing 12/2004; 13(8):913-24. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.01007.x · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Considerable financial and philosophical effort has been expended on the evidence-based practice agenda. Whilst few would disagree with the notion of delivering care based on information about what works, there remain significant challenges about what evidence is, and thus how practitioners use it in decision-making in the reality of clinical practice. This paper continues the debate about the nature of evidence and argues for the use of a broader evidence base in the implementation of patient-centred care. Against a background of financial constraints, risk reduction, increased managerialism research evidence, and more specifically research about effectiveness, have assumed pre-eminence. However, the practice of effective nursing, which is mediated through the contact and relationship between individual practitioner and patient, can only be achieved by using several sources of evidence. This paper outlines the potential contribution of four types of evidence in the delivery of care, namely research, clinical experience, patient experience and information from the local context. Fundamentally, drawing on these four sources of evidence will require the bringing together of two approaches to care: the external, scientific and the internal, intuitive. Having described the characteristics of a broader evidence base for practice, the challenge remains to ensure that each is as robust as possible, and that they are melded coherently and sensibly in the real time of practice. Some of the ideas presented in this paper challenge more traditional approaches to evidence-based practice. The delivery of effective, evidence-based patient-centred care will only be realized when a broader definition of what counts as evidence is embraced.
    Journal of Advanced Nursing 08/2004; 47(1):81-90. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03068.x · 1.69 Impact Factor