The Influence of Context on Quality Improvement Success in Health Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
Milbank Quarterly (Impact Factor: 5.06). 12/2010; 88(4):500-59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The mixed results of success among QI initiatives may be due to differences in the context of these initiatives.
The business and health care literature was systematically reviewed to identify contextual factors that might influence QI success; to categorize, summarize, and synthesize these factors; and to understand the current stage of development of this research field.
Forty-seven articles were included in the final review. Consistent with current theories of implementation and organization change, leadership from top management, organizational culture, data infrastructure and information systems, and years involved in QI were suggested as important to QI success. Other potentially important factors identified in this review included: physician involvement in QI, microsystem motivation to change, resources for QI, and QI team leadership. Key limitations in the existing literature were the lack of a practical conceptual model, the lack of clear definitions of contextual factors, and the lack of well-specified measures.
Several contextual factors were shown to be important to QI success, although the current body of literature lacks adequate definitions and is characterized by considerable variability in how contextual factors are measured across studies. Future research should focus on identifying and developing measures of context tied to a conceptual model that examines context across all levels of the health care system and explores the relationships among various aspects of context.


Available from: Peter Margolis, Apr 17, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The tracking of elective deliveries (ED) prior to 39 gestational weeks has become a mandatory requirement for all hospitals with ≥1,100 deliveries for accreditation by The Joint Commission (TJC); however, the feasibility and accuracy of monitoring efforts remain problematic for many hospitals. Here, we evaluated the feasibility of three operational approaches to tracking ED. We used mixed methods to evaluate the feasibility of 3 different approaches to tracking ED: (1) using administrative data, (2) using electronic medical record (EMR) data, and (3) using targeted data collection in a county-wide quality improvement (QI) effort. For (1), we analyzed data from the California 2009 linked birth cohort dataset, and calculated hospital rates of ED using TJC technical specifications. For (2), we performed a case study of a project that recruited hospitals to provide EMR data for the TJC measure calculation. For (3), we performed a case study of a project that recruited hospitals to prospectively track elective inductions of labor. For (1), hospital discharge data were insufficient without supplementation from the EMR or birth certificate. For (2), legal and operational issues surrounding data sharing, and non-standardized data elements prohibited hospital participation. For (3), the QI approach successfully established policies and data collection systems yet lacked infrastructure to assure sustainability at a hospital or regional level. In summary, ED tracking required the coordination and support of multiple resources to enable hospitals to satisfactorily report on this measure.
    Maternal and Child Health Journal 02/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10995-015-1725-y · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Contextual elements have significant impact on uptake of health care innovations. While existing conceptual frameworks in implementation science suggest contextual elements interact with each other, little research has described how this might look in practice. To bridge this gap, this study identifies the interconnected patterns among contextual elements that influence uptake of an anticoagulation clinic improvement initiative. Methods We completed 51 semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations across five case study sites involved in an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement initiative. We analyzed data in NVivo 10 using an a priori approach based on the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) model and an emergent thematic analysis. Results Key contextual elements, such as leadership, teamwork, and communication, interacted with each other in contributing to site-level uptake of the EBP, often yielding results that could not be predicted by looking at just one of these elements alone. Sites with context conducive to change in these areas predictably had high uptake, while sites with uniformly weak contextual elements had low uptake. Most sites presented a mixed picture, with contextual elements being strongly supportive of change in some areas and weak or moderate in others. In some cases, we found that sites with strong context in at least one area only needed to have adequate context in other areas to yield high uptake. At other sites, weak context in just one area had the potential to contribute to low uptake, despite countervailing strengths. Even a site with positive views of EBPs could not succeed when context was weak. Conclusion Interrelationships among different contextual elements can act as barriers to uptake at some sites and as facilitators at others. Accounting for interconnections among elements enables PARIHS to more fully describe the determinants of successful implementation as they operate in real-world settings.
    BMC Health Services Research 02/2015; 15. DOI:10.1186/s12913-015-0713-7 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The World Health Organization created a Surgical Safety Checklist with a pause or "time out" to help reduce preventable adverse events and improve communication. A similar tool might improve patient safety and reduce treatment-associated morbidity in the hemodialysis unit. To develop a Hemodialysis Safety Checklist (Hemo Pause) for daily use by nurses and patients. A modified Delphi consensus technique based on the RAND method was used to evaluate and revise the checklist. University-affiliated in-center hemodialysis unit. A multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses, and administrators developed the initial version of the Hemo Pause Checklist. The evaluation team consisted of 20 registered hemodialysis nurses. The top 5 hemodialysis safety measures according to hemodialysis nurses. A 75% agreement threshold was required for consensus. The structured panel process was iterative, consisting of a literature review to identify safety parameters, individual rating of each parameter by the panel of hemodialysis nurses, an in-person consensus meeting wherein the panel refined the parameters, and a final anonymous survey that assessed panel consensus. The literature review produced 31 patient safety parameters. Individual review by panelists reduced the list to 25 parameters, followed by further reduction to 19 at the in-person consensus meeting. The final round of scoring yielded the following top 5 safety measures: 1) confirmation of patient identity, 2) measurement of pre-dialysis weight, 3) recognition and transcription of new medical orders, 4) confirmation of dialysate composition based on prescription, and 5) measurement of pre-dialysis blood pressure. Revision using human factors principles incorporated the 19 patient safety parameters with greater than or equal to 75% consensus into a final checklist of 17-items. The literature review was not systematic. This was a single-center study, and the panel lacked patient and family representation. A novel 17-item Hemodialysis Safety Checklist (Hemo Pause) for use by nurses and patients has been developed to standardize the hemodialysis procedure. Further quality improvement efforts are underway to explore the feasibility of using this checklist to reduce adverse events and strengthen the safety culture in the hemodialysis unit.
    12/2015; 2(1). DOI:10.1186/s40697-015-0039-8