Quality improvement collaboratives and the wisdom of crowds: spread explained by perceived success at group level

The Cystic Fibrosis Learning Network: A mixed methods evaluation of program goals, attributes, and impact

Introduction

The Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Foundation sponsored the design, pilot testing, and implementation of the CF Learning Network (CFLN) to explore how the Foundation's Care Center Network (CCN) could become a learning health system. Six years after the design, the Foundation commissioned a formative mixed methods evaluation of the CFLN to assess: CFLN participants' understanding of program goals, attributes, and perceptions of current and future impact.

Methods

We performed semi-structured interviews with CFLN participants to identify perceived goals, attributes, and impact of the network. Following thematic analyses, we developed and distributed a survey to CFLN members and a matched sample of CCN programs to understand whether the themes were unique to the CFLN.

Results

Interviews with 24 CFLN participants were conducted. Interviewees identified the primary CFLN goal as improving outcomes for people living with CF, with secondary goals of providing training in quality improvement (QI), creating a learning community, engaging all stakeholders in improvement, and spreading best practices to the CCN. Project management, use of data, common QI methods, and the learning community were seen as critical to success. Survey responses were collected from 103 CFLN members and 25 CCN members. The data revealed that CFLN respondents were more likely than CCN respondents to connect with other CF programs, routinely use data for QI, and engage patient and family partners in QI.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that the CFLN provides value beyond that achieved by the CCN. Key questions remain about whether spread of the CFLN could improve outcomes for more people living with CF.

Scaling Beyond Early Adopters: a Content Analysis of Literature and Key Informant Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Innovations and improvements in care delivery are often not spread across all settings that would benefit from their uptake. Scale-up and spread efforts are deliberate efforts to increase the impact of innovations successfully tested in pilot projects so as to benefit more people. The final stages of scale-up and spread initiatives must contend with reaching hard-to-engage sites.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the process of scale-up and spread initiatives, with a focus on hard-to-engage sites and strategies to approach them.

DESIGN

Qualitative content analysis of systematically identified literature and key informant interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Leads from large magnitude scale-up and spread projects.

APPROACH

We conducted a systematic literature search on large magnitude scale-up and spread and interviews with eight project leads, who shared their perspectives on strategies to scale-up and spread clinical and administrative practices across healthcare systems, focusing on hard-to-engage sites. We synthesized these data using content analysis.

KEY RESULTS

Searches identified 1919 titles, of which 52 articles were included. Thirty-four discussed general scale-up and spread strategies, 11 described hard-to-engage sites, and 7 discussed strategies for hard-to-engage sites. These included publications were combined with interview findings to describe a fourth phase of the national scale-up and spread process, common challenges for spreading to hard-to-engage sites, and potential benefits of working with hard-to-engage sites, as well as useful strategies for working with hard-to-engage sites.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified scant published evidence that describes strategies for reaching hard-to-engage sites. The sparse data we identified aligned with key informant accounts. Future work could focus on better documentation of the later stages of spread efforts, including specific tailoring of approaches and strategies used with hard-to-engage sites. Spread efforts should include a "flexible, tailored approach" for this highly variable group, especially as implementation science is looking to expand its impact in routine care settings.

How and under what circumstances do quality improvement collaboratives lead to better outcomes? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement collaboratives are widely used to improve health care in both high-income and low and middle-income settings. Teams from multiple health facilities share learning on a given topic and apply a structured cycle of change testing. Previous systematic reviews reported positive effects on target outcomes, but the role of context and mechanism of change is underexplored. This realist-inspired systematic review aims to analyse contextual factors influencing intended outcomes and to identify how quality improvement collaboratives may result in improved adherence to evidence-based practices.

METHODS

We built an initial conceptual framework to drive our enquiry, focusing on three context domains: health facility setting; project-specific factors; wider organisational and external factors; and two further domains pertaining to mechanisms: intra-organisational and inter-organisational changes. We systematically searched five databases and grey literature for publications relating to quality improvement collaboratives in a healthcare setting and containing data on context or mechanisms. We analysed and reported findings thematically and refined the programme theory.

RESULTS

We screened 962 abstracts of which 88 met the inclusion criteria, and we retained 32 for analysis. Adequacy and appropriateness of external support, functionality of quality improvement teams, leadership characteristics and alignment with national systems and priorities may influence outcomes of quality improvement collaboratives, but the strength and quality of the evidence is weak. Participation in quality improvement collaborative activities may improve health professionals' knowledge, problem-solving skills and attitude; teamwork; shared leadership and habits for improvement. Interaction across quality improvement teams may generate normative pressure and opportunities for capacity building and peer recognition.

CONCLUSION

Our review offers a novel programme theory to unpack the complexity of quality improvement collaboratives by exploring the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes. There remains a need for greater use of behaviour change and organisational psychology theory to improve design, adaptation and evaluation of the collaborative quality improvement approach and to test its effectiveness. Further research is needed to determine whether certain contextual factors related to capacity should be a precondition to the quality improvement collaborative approach and to test the emerging programme theory using rigorous research designs.

Context Matters: Team and Organizational Factors Associated with Reach of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for PTSD in the Veterans Health Administration

Evidence-based psychotherapies for PTSD are often underused. The objective of this mixed-method study was to identify organizational and clinic factors that promote high levels of reach of evidence-based psychotherapies for PTSD 10 years into their dissemination throughout the Veterans Health Administration. We conducted 96 individual interviews with staff from ten outpatient PTSD teams at nine sites that differed in reach of evidence-based psychotherapies for PTSD. Major themes associated with reach included clinic mission, clinic leader and staff engagement, clinic operations, staff perceptions, and the practice environment. Strategies to improve reach of evidence-based psychotherapies should attend to organizational and team-level factors.

Professionals learning together with patients: An exploratory study of a collaborative learning Fellowship programme for healthcare improvement

Improving the quality of healthcare involves collaboration between many different stakeholders. Collaborative learning theory suggests that teaching different professional groups alongside each other may enable them to develop skills in how to collaborate effectively, but there is little literature on how this works in practice. Further, though it is recognised that patients play a fundamental role in quality improvement, there are few examples of where they learn together with professionals. To contribute to addressing this gap, we review a collaborative fellowship in Northwest London, designed to build capacity to improve healthcare, which enabled patients and professionals to learn together. Using the lens of collaborative learning, we conducted an exploratory study of six cohorts of the year long programme (71 participants). Data were collected using open text responses from an online survey (n = 31) and semi-structured interviews (n = 34) and analysed using an inductive open coding approach. The collaborative design of the Fellowship, which included bringing multiple perspectives to discussions of real world problems, was valued by participants who reflected on the safe, egalitarian space created by the programme. Participants (healthcare professionals and patients) found this way of learning initially challenging yet ultimately productive. Despite the pedagogical and practical challenges of developing a collaborative programme, this study indicates that opening up previously restricted learning opportunities as widely as possible, to include patients and carers, is an effective mechanism to develop collaborative skills for quality improvement.

Quality improvement collaborative: A novel approach to improve infection prevention and control. Perceptions of lead infection prevention nurses who participated

Background

In response to the ongoing infection prevention (IP) challenges in England, a 90-day quality improvement (QI) collaborative programme was developed. The paper discusses the approach, benefits, challenges and evaluation of the programme.

Objective

The objective of the collaborative was to develop new approaches to enable sustainable and effective IP.

Methodology

Six trusts in the region participated in the collaborative. Each defined their bespoke IP focus. There was no expectation that statistically significant measurable improvements would be identified during the short time frame. The experiences of the participants were sought both during the programme to facilitate its constant review and at the end of the programme to evaluate its effectiveness. The feedback focused on achievements, barriers to change and benefits of participating in a QI collaborative. To measure the potential success of the projects, participants completed the Model for Understanding Success in Quality framework. (MUSIQ; Kaplan et al., 2012).

Results

Since each trusts IP focus was bespoke commonalities of success were not evaluated. Participants identified a positive outcome from their QI interventions. The MUSIQ score identified the projects had the potential for success.

Discussion

The feedback from the participants demonstrated that it is worthy of further development.