Development of the continuous quality improvement questionnaire (CQIQ)

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments

Background

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are widely used in healthcare; however, the effectiveness of the methods is variable, and evidence about the extent to which contextual and other factors modify effects is limited. Investigating the relationship between these factors and CQI outcomes poses challenges for those evaluating CQI, among the most complex of which relate to the measurement of modifying factors. We aimed to provide guidance to support the selection of measurement instruments by systematically collating, categorising, 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: The scope of the review was determined by a conceptual framework developed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). Papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring a construct encompassed by the framework were included. 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 summarising and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorised 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 186 potentially relevant instruments, 152 of which were analysed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-four instruments measured constructs relevant to primary care, with content measuring CQI implementation and use (19 instruments), organizational context (51 instruments), and individual factors (21 instruments). Forty-one instruments were included for full review. Development methods were often pragmatic, rather than systematic and theory-based, and evidence supporting measurement properties was limited.

Conclusions

Many instruments are available for evaluating CQI, but most require further use and testing to establish their measurement properties. Further development and use of these measures in evaluations should increase the contribution made by individual studies to our understanding of CQI and enhance our ability to synthesise evidence for informing policy and practice.

Addressing core competencies through hospital quality improvement activities: attitudes and engagement

BACKGROUND

Hospital quality improvement initiatives are becoming increasingly common. Little is known about the influence of these initiatives on resident learning and attitudes. Our objective was to assess whether training in a hospital committed to involving residents in hospital-initiated, continuous quality improvement (CQI), and to participation in such activities, would influence residents' attitudes toward CQI and engagement in the hospital community.

METHODS

We surveyed Seattle Children's Hospital pediatric residents, from residency graduation years 2002-2009. We included questions about participation in quality improvement activities during residency and measures of attitude toward CQI and of workplace engagement. We used descriptive statistics to assess trends in resident participation in hospital CQI activities, attitudes toward CQI and workplace engagement.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 84% (162 of 194). Among graduated residents, there was a significant trend toward increased participation in CQI activities (P  =  .03). We found no difference in attitude toward CQI between those who had and those who had not participated in such activities nor between residents who began training before and those who began after the hospital formally committed to CQI. Sixty-three percent of residents (25 of 40) who participated in CQI activities were engaged in the hospital community compared with 53% (57 of 107) who did not participate in CQI activities (P  =  .21).

CONCLUSIONS

Training in a hospital committed to involving residents in CQI was associated with a high rate of participation in CQI activities. Although such training and participation in CQI were not associated with resident attitudes toward CQI or hospital engagement, it may allow residents to learn skills for practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice.