To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

In-depth comparison of tw… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

In-depth comparison of two quality improvement collaboratives from different healthcare areas based on registry data-possible factors contributing to sustained improvement in outcomes beyond the project time

Journal article
Authors Beatrix Algurén
A. Nordin
B. Andersson-Gare
A. Peterson
Published in Implementation Science
Volume 14
ISSN 1748-5908
Publication year 2019
Published at Department of Food and Nutrition, and Sport Science
Language en
Links dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0926-...
Keywords Collaboratives, Quality improvement, Teams, Learning, Measurement skills, Data warehouses, swedish, lessons, Health Care Sciences & Services
Subject categories Learning, Health Sciences, Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Abstract

BackgroundQuality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are widely used to improve healthcare, but there are few studies of long-term sustained improved outcomes, and inconsistent evidence about what factors contribute to success. The aim of the study was to open the black box of QICs and compare characteristics and activities in detail of two differing QICs in relation to their changed outcomes from baseline and the following 3years.MethodsFinal reports of two QICs-one on heart failure care with five teams, and one on osteoarthritis care with seven teams, including detailed descriptions of improvement projects from each QIC's team, were analysed and coded by 18 QIC characteristics and four team characteristics. Goal variables from each team routinely collected within the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) and the Better Management of Patients with OsteoArthritis Registry (BOA) at year 2013 (baseline), 2014, 2015 and 2016 were analysed with univariate statistics.ResultsThe two QICs differed greatly in design. The SwedeHF-QIC involved eight experts and ran for 12months, whereas the BOA-QIC engaged three experts and ran for 6months. There were about twice as many activities in the SwedeHF-QIC as in the BOA-QIC and they ranged from standardisation of team coordination to better information and structured follow-ups. The outcome results were heterogeneous within teams and across teams and QICs. Both QICs were highly appreciated by the participants and contributed to their learning, e.g. of improvement methods; however, several teams had already reached goal values when the QICs were launched in 2013.ConclusionsEven though many QI activities were carried out, it was difficult to see sustained improvements on outcomes. Outcomes as specific measurable aspects of care in need of improvement should be chosen carefully. Activities focusing on adherence to standard care programmes and on increased follow-up of patients seemed to lead to more long-lasting improvements. Although earlier studies showed that data follow-up and measurement skills as well as well-functioning data warehouses contribute to sustained improvements, the present registries' functionality and QICs at this time did not support those aspects sufficiently. Further studies on QICs and their impact on improvement beyond the project time should investigate the effect of those elements in particular.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012
Share:

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?