Cargando…

Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare

BACKGROUND: Plan–do–study–act (PDSA) cycles provide a structure for iterative testing of changes to improve quality of systems. The method is widely accepted in healthcare improvement; however there is little overarching evaluation of how the method is applied. This paper proposes a theoretical fram...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taylor, Michael J, McNicholas, Chris, Nicolay, Chris, Darzi, Ara, Bell, Derek, Reed, Julie E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3963536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24025320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862
_version_ 1782308518806683648
author Taylor, Michael J
McNicholas, Chris
Nicolay, Chris
Darzi, Ara
Bell, Derek
Reed, Julie E
author_facet Taylor, Michael J
McNicholas, Chris
Nicolay, Chris
Darzi, Ara
Bell, Derek
Reed, Julie E
author_sort Taylor, Michael J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Plan–do–study–act (PDSA) cycles provide a structure for iterative testing of changes to improve quality of systems. The method is widely accepted in healthcare improvement; however there is little overarching evaluation of how the method is applied. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for assessing the quality of application of PDSA cycles and explores the consistency with which the method has been applied in peer-reviewed literature against this framework. METHODS: NHS Evidence and Cochrane databases were searched by three independent reviewers. Empirical studies were included that reported application of the PDSA method in healthcare. Application of PDSA cycles was assessed against key features of the method, including documentation characteristics, use of iterative cycles, prediction-based testing of change, initial small-scale testing and use of data over time. RESULTS: 73 of 409 individual articles identified met the inclusion criteria. Of the 73 articles, 47 documented PDSA cycles in sufficient detail for full analysis against the whole framework. Many of these studies reported application of the PDSA method that failed to accord with primary features of the method. Less than 20% (14/73) fully documented the application of a sequence of iterative cycles. Furthermore, a lack of adherence to the notion of small-scale change is apparent and only 15% (7/47) reported the use of quantitative data at monthly or more frequent data intervals to inform progression of cycles. DISCUSSION: To progress the development of the science of improvement, a greater understanding of the use of improvement methods, including PDSA, is essential to draw reliable conclusions about their effectiveness. This would be supported by the development of systematic and rigorous standards for the application and reporting of PDSAs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3963536
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39635362014-03-27 Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare Taylor, Michael J McNicholas, Chris Nicolay, Chris Darzi, Ara Bell, Derek Reed, Julie E BMJ Qual Saf Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Plan–do–study–act (PDSA) cycles provide a structure for iterative testing of changes to improve quality of systems. The method is widely accepted in healthcare improvement; however there is little overarching evaluation of how the method is applied. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for assessing the quality of application of PDSA cycles and explores the consistency with which the method has been applied in peer-reviewed literature against this framework. METHODS: NHS Evidence and Cochrane databases were searched by three independent reviewers. Empirical studies were included that reported application of the PDSA method in healthcare. Application of PDSA cycles was assessed against key features of the method, including documentation characteristics, use of iterative cycles, prediction-based testing of change, initial small-scale testing and use of data over time. RESULTS: 73 of 409 individual articles identified met the inclusion criteria. Of the 73 articles, 47 documented PDSA cycles in sufficient detail for full analysis against the whole framework. Many of these studies reported application of the PDSA method that failed to accord with primary features of the method. Less than 20% (14/73) fully documented the application of a sequence of iterative cycles. Furthermore, a lack of adherence to the notion of small-scale change is apparent and only 15% (7/47) reported the use of quantitative data at monthly or more frequent data intervals to inform progression of cycles. DISCUSSION: To progress the development of the science of improvement, a greater understanding of the use of improvement methods, including PDSA, is essential to draw reliable conclusions about their effectiveness. This would be supported by the development of systematic and rigorous standards for the application and reporting of PDSAs. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-04 2013-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3963536/ /pubmed/24025320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862 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 Systematic Review
Taylor, Michael J
McNicholas, Chris
Nicolay, Chris
Darzi, Ara
Bell, Derek
Reed, Julie E
Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare
title Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare
title_full Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare
title_fullStr Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare
title_short Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare
title_sort systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3963536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24025320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862
work_keys_str_mv AT taylormichaelj systematicreviewoftheapplicationoftheplandostudyactmethodtoimprovequalityinhealthcare
AT mcnicholaschris systematicreviewoftheapplicationoftheplandostudyactmethodtoimprovequalityinhealthcare
AT nicolaychris systematicreviewoftheapplicationoftheplandostudyactmethodtoimprovequalityinhealthcare
AT darziara systematicreviewoftheapplicationoftheplandostudyactmethodtoimprovequalityinhealthcare
AT bellderek systematicreviewoftheapplicationoftheplandostudyactmethodtoimprovequalityinhealthcare
AT reedjuliee systematicreviewoftheapplicationoftheplandostudyactmethodtoimprovequalityinhealthcare