Cargando…

Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators

BACKGROUND: Achieving quality improvement (QI) aims often requires local innovation. Without objective evidence review, innovators may miss previously tested approaches, rely on biased information, or use personal preferences in designing and implementing local QI programmes. AIM: To develop a pract...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Danz, Margie Sherwood, Hempel, Susanne, Lim, Yee-Wei, Shanman, Roberta, Motala, Aneesa, Stockdale, Susan, Shekelle, Paul, Rubenstein, Lisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3812883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23832925
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001722
_version_ 1782289017723682816
author Danz, Margie Sherwood
Hempel, Susanne
Lim, Yee-Wei
Shanman, Roberta
Motala, Aneesa
Stockdale, Susan
Shekelle, Paul
Rubenstein, Lisa
author_facet Danz, Margie Sherwood
Hempel, Susanne
Lim, Yee-Wei
Shanman, Roberta
Motala, Aneesa
Stockdale, Susan
Shekelle, Paul
Rubenstein, Lisa
author_sort Danz, Margie Sherwood
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Achieving quality improvement (QI) aims often requires local innovation. Without objective evidence review, innovators may miss previously tested approaches, rely on biased information, or use personal preferences in designing and implementing local QI programmes. AIM: To develop a practical, responsive approach to evidence review for QI innovations aimed at both achieving the goals of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and developing an evidence-based QI culture. DESIGN: Descriptive organisational case report. METHODS: As part of a QI initiative to develop and spread innovations for achieving the Veterans Affairs (VA) PCMH (termed Patient Aligned Care Team, or PACT), we involved a professional evidence review team (consisting of review experts, an experienced librarian, and administrative support) in responding to the evidence needs of front-line primary care innovators. The review team developed a systematic approach to responsive innovation evidence review (RIER) that focused on innovator needs in terms of time frame, type of evidence and method of communicating results. To assess uptake and usefulness of the RIERs, and to learn how the content and process could be improved, we surveyed innovation leaders. RESULTS: In the first 16 months of the QI initiative, we produced 13 RIERs on a variety of topics. These were presented as 6–15-page summaries and as slides at a QI collaborative. The RIERs focused on innovator needs (eg, topic overviews, how innovations are carried out, or contextual factors relevant to implementation). All 17 innovators who responded to the survey had read at least one RIER; 50% rated the reviews as very useful and 31%, as probably useful. CONCLUSIONS: These responsive evidence reviews appear to be a promising approach to integrating evidence review into QI processes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3812883
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38128832013-10-31 Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators Danz, Margie Sherwood Hempel, Susanne Lim, Yee-Wei Shanman, Roberta Motala, Aneesa Stockdale, Susan Shekelle, Paul Rubenstein, Lisa BMJ Qual Saf Original Research BACKGROUND: Achieving quality improvement (QI) aims often requires local innovation. Without objective evidence review, innovators may miss previously tested approaches, rely on biased information, or use personal preferences in designing and implementing local QI programmes. AIM: To develop a practical, responsive approach to evidence review for QI innovations aimed at both achieving the goals of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and developing an evidence-based QI culture. DESIGN: Descriptive organisational case report. METHODS: As part of a QI initiative to develop and spread innovations for achieving the Veterans Affairs (VA) PCMH (termed Patient Aligned Care Team, or PACT), we involved a professional evidence review team (consisting of review experts, an experienced librarian, and administrative support) in responding to the evidence needs of front-line primary care innovators. The review team developed a systematic approach to responsive innovation evidence review (RIER) that focused on innovator needs in terms of time frame, type of evidence and method of communicating results. To assess uptake and usefulness of the RIERs, and to learn how the content and process could be improved, we surveyed innovation leaders. RESULTS: In the first 16 months of the QI initiative, we produced 13 RIERs on a variety of topics. These were presented as 6–15-page summaries and as slides at a QI collaborative. The RIERs focused on innovator needs (eg, topic overviews, how innovations are carried out, or contextual factors relevant to implementation). All 17 innovators who responded to the survey had read at least one RIER; 50% rated the reviews as very useful and 31%, as probably useful. CONCLUSIONS: These responsive evidence reviews appear to be a promising approach to integrating evidence review into QI processes. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-11 2013-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3812883/ /pubmed/23832925 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001722 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Original Research
Danz, Margie Sherwood
Hempel, Susanne
Lim, Yee-Wei
Shanman, Roberta
Motala, Aneesa
Stockdale, Susan
Shekelle, Paul
Rubenstein, Lisa
Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators
title Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators
title_full Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators
title_fullStr Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators
title_full_unstemmed Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators
title_short Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators
title_sort incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3812883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23832925
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001722
work_keys_str_mv AT danzmargiesherwood incorporatingevidencereviewintoqualityimprovementmeetingtheneedsofinnovators
AT hempelsusanne incorporatingevidencereviewintoqualityimprovementmeetingtheneedsofinnovators
AT limyeewei incorporatingevidencereviewintoqualityimprovementmeetingtheneedsofinnovators
AT shanmanroberta incorporatingevidencereviewintoqualityimprovementmeetingtheneedsofinnovators
AT motalaaneesa incorporatingevidencereviewintoqualityimprovementmeetingtheneedsofinnovators
AT stockdalesusan incorporatingevidencereviewintoqualityimprovementmeetingtheneedsofinnovators
AT shekellepaul incorporatingevidencereviewintoqualityimprovementmeetingtheneedsofinnovators
AT rubensteinlisa incorporatingevidencereviewintoqualityimprovementmeetingtheneedsofinnovators