Quality collaboratives: lessons from research.

The Nordic School of Public Health, Goteborg, Sweden The Health Services Management Centre, Birmingham University, UK.
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 01/2003; 11(4):345-51.
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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) on the quality of healthcare. This article addresses an underexplored topic, namely the use of QICs as 'intentional spread strategy.' Its objective is to predict the dissemination of projects within hospitals participating in a change programme based on several QICs. We tested whether the average project success at QIC level (based on opinions of individual project team leaders) explains the dissemination of projects one year later.
    Implementation Science 07/2014; 9(1):91. · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality improvement (QI) is now a central part of the work of clinicians throughout healthcare. It is based on clear scientific principles, a valid way of measuring change and has theories of reliability and human factors that underpin the interventions. The Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is a highly complex adaptive system that lends itself to the application of QI principles. This will require the development of a safety culture that continually seeks to improve. Clinicians and all those who work in NICU will require training in the methodologies of QI and patient safety to effect change. Working together in collaborative networks can accelerate change. In this paper we discuss some of the key concepts and provide some examples of improvement in the NICU.
    Early Human Development 09/2014; · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundA quality improvement collaborative is an intensive project involving a combination of implementation strategies applied in a limited inverted question markbreakthrough inverted question mark time window. After an implementation project, it is generally difficult to sustain its success. In the current study, sustainability was described as maintaining an implemented innovation and its benefits over a longer period of time after the implementation project has ended. The aim of the study was to explore potentially promising strategies for sustaining the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme in colonic surgery as perceived by professionals, three to six years after the hospital had successfully finished a quality improvement collaborative.MethodsA qualitative case study was performed to identify promising strategies to sustain key outcome variables related to the ERAS programme in terms of adherence, time needed for functional recovery and hospital length of stay (LOS), as achieved immediately after implementation. Ten hospitals were selected which had successfully implemented the ERAS programme in colonic surgery (2006 inverted question mark2009), with success defined as a median LOS of 6 days or less and protocol adherence rates above 70%. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were held with eighteen key participants of the care process three to six years after implementation, starting with the project leader in every hospital. The interviews started by confronting them with the level of sustained implementation results. A direct content analysis with an inductive coding approach was used to identify promising strategies. The mean duration of the interviews was 37 minutes (min 26 minutes inverted question mark max 51 minutes).ResultsThe current study revealed strategies targeting professionals and the organisation. They comprised internal audit and feedback on outcomes, small-scale educational booster meetings, reminders, changing the physical structure of the organisation, changing the care process, making work agreements and delegating responsibility, and involving a coordinator. A multifaceted self-driven promising strategy was applied in most hospitals, and in most hospitals promising strategies were suggested to sustain the ERAS programme.ConclusionsJoining a quality improvement collaborative may not be enough to achieve long-term normalisation of transformed care, and additional investments may be needed. The findings suggest that certain post-implementation strategies are valuable in sustaining implementation successes achieved after joining a quality improvement collaborative.
    BMC Health Services Research 12/2014; 14(1):641. · 1.66 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 4, 2014