Deciding when quality and safety improvement interventions warrant widespread adoption

Scott, Ian A; Wakefield, John B

doi:10.5694/mja12.10858

Topics

Evaluative criteria are needed to determine the likelihood of successful implementation and acceptable return on investment

Determining when a specific quality and safety improvement intervention (QSII) has sufficient evidence of effectiveness to warrant widespread implementation is highly controversial.1,2 Some large-scale QSIIs have been shown to be less effective than originally thought (Box).3,4,5,6,7,8 Reporting guidelines for QSII studies stipulate sufficient detail to allow users to gauge the feasibility and reproducibility of a specific QSII within local contexts.9 Some authors have focused on study designs and statistical methods used to evaluate QSIIs.10 An international expert group has distilled several key themes that researchers should consider and discuss when describing experiences with specific QSIIs.11

Box

1 Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD.
2 Royal Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD.

Correspondence: ian_scott@health.qld.gov.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Auerbach AD, Landefeld CS, Shojania KG. The tension between needing to improve care and knowing how to do it. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 608-613.
2. Berwick DM. The science of improvement. JAMA 2008; 299: 1182-1184.
3. Buist MD, Moore GE, Bernard SA, et al. Effects of a medical emergency team on reduction of incidence of and mortality from unexpected cardiac arrests in hospital: preliminary study. BMJ 2002; 324: 387-390.
4. Bellomo R, Goldsmith D, Uchino S, et al. Prospective controlled trial of effect of medical emergency team on postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 916-921.
5. Chan PS, Jain R, Nallmothu BK, et al. Rapid response teams: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 18-26.
6. Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, et al. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 375-384.
7. Petersen LA, Woodward LD, Urech T, et al. Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 265-272.
8. Campbell SM, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, et al. Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 368-378.
9. Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, et al; SQUIRE Development Group. Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE Project. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 670-676.
10. Fan E, Laupacis A, Pronovost PJ, et al. How to use an article about quality improvement. JAMA 2010; 304: 2279-2287.
11. Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Wachter RM, et al. Advancing the science of patient safety. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 693-696.
12. Alexander JA, Hearld LR. What can we learn from quality improvement research? A critical review of research methods. Med Care Res Rev 2009; 66: 235-271.
13. Brown C, Lilford R. Evaluating service delivery interventions to enhance patient safety. BMJ 2008; 337: a2764.
14. Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, et al. The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 2010; 88: 500-559.
15. Wakefield J, McLaws ML, Whitby M, Patton L. Patient safety culture: factors that influence clinician involvement in patient safety behaviours. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19: 585-591.
16. Francis JJ, Stockton C, Eccles MP, et al. Evidence-based selection of theories for designing behaviour change interventions: using methods based on theoretical construct domains to understand clinicians’ blood transfusion behaviour. Br J Health Psychol 2009; 14 (Pt 4): 625-646.
17. Dixon-Woods M, McNicol S, Martin G. Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation’s programme evaluations and relevant literature. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21: 876-884.
18. Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 14-19.
19. Eldridge S, Spencer A, Cryer C, et al. Why modelling a complex intervention is an important precursor to trial design: lessons from studying an intervention to reduce falls-related injuries in older people. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10: 133-142.
20. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al; Safe Surgery Saves Lives Study Group. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 491-499.
21. Morganti KG, Lovejoy S, Haviland AM, et al. Measuring success for health care quality improvement interventions. Med Care 2012; 50: 1086-1092.
22. Cornish PL, Knowles SR, Marchesano R, et al. Unintended medication discrepancies at the time of hospital admission. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 424-429.
23. Nieva VF, Sorra J. Safety culture assessment: a tool for improving patient safety in healthcare organizations. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12 Suppl 2: ii17-23.
24. Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD, et al. Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. JAMA 1999; 282: 267-270.
25. Nazareth I, Freemantle N, Duggan C, et al. Evaluation of a complex intervention for changing professional behaviour: the Evidence Based Out Reach (EBOR) Trial. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002; 7: 230-238.
26. Goldman L, Fiebach N. Hippocrates affirmed? Limiting residents’ work hours does no harm to patients. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 143-144.
27. Wachter RM, Pronovost PJ. The 100,000 Lives Campaign: a scientific and policy review. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2006; 32: 621-627.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.