Strengthening the contribution of quality improvement research to evidence based health care.

Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3M6.
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 07/2006; 15(3):150-1. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2005.017103
Source: PubMed
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Measuring team factors in evaluations of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) may provide important information for enhancing CQI processes and outcomes; however, the large number of potentially relevant factors and associated measurement instruments makes inclusion of such measures challenging. This review aims to provide guidance on the selection of instruments for measuring team-level factors by systematically collating, categorizing, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments. METHODS: Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments; reference lists of systematic reviews; and citations and references of the main report of instruments. Study selection: To determine the scope of the review, we developed and used a conceptual framework designed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). We included papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring factors relevant to teamwork. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarizing and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorized using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care. RESULTS: We identified 192 potentially relevant instruments, 170 of which were analyzed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-one instruments measured constructs relevant to CQI teams in primary care, with content covering teamwork context (45 instruments measured enabling conditions or attitudes to teamwork), team process (57 instruments measured teamwork behaviors), and team outcomes (59 instruments measured perceptions of the team or its effectiveness). Forty instruments were included for full review, many with a strong theoretical basis. Evidence supporting measurement properties was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Existing instruments cover many of the factors hypothesized to contribute to QI success. With further testing, use of these instruments measuring team factors in evaluations could aid our understanding of the influence of teamwork on CQI outcomes. Greater consistency in the factors measured and choice of measurement instruments is required to enable synthesis of findings for informing policy and practice.
    Implementation Science 02/2013; 8(1):20. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-8-20 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The health authorities of Stockholm county recently published a Health Technology Assessment report: "Fetal monitoring with computerized STAN analysis during labor - a systematic review" with the aim to ensure that high quality research information on costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is analysed and presented in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in this field. The report claims to analyse available research in relation to ST interval analysis of fetal electrocardiogram (STAN) and concludes that scientific evidence for advantages of the STAN technology for maternal and fetal outcome was insufficient and that clinical use cannot be recommended and should be restricted to research protocols. The Norwegian reference group for fetal surveillance points out that the report suffers from two insufficiencies: selection bias by not providing a complete collection of the evidence for the clinical performance of the STAN technology and, secondly, that it does not provide evidence-based alternative methods.
    Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica 06/2012; 91(9):1011-4. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01475.x · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2005 we published draft guidelines for reporting studies of quality improvement interventions as the initial step in a consensus process for development of a more definitive version. The current article contains the revised version, which we refer to as SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence). We describe the consensus process, which included informal feedback, formal written commentaries, input from publication guideline developers, review of the literature on the epistemology of improvement and on methods for evaluating complex social programs, and a meeting of stakeholders for critical review of the guidelines’ content and wording, followed by commentary on sequential versions from an expert consultant group. Finally, we examine major differences between SQUIRE and the initial draft, and consider limitations of and unresolved questions about SQUIRE; we also describe ancillary supporting documents and alternative versions under development, and plans for dissemination, testing, and further development of SQUIRE.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2008; 23(12):2125-2130. DOI:10.1007/s11606-008-0797-4 · 3.42 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 17, 2014