Cargando…

Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: Although widely recommended as an effective approach to quality improvement (QI), the Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycle method can be challenging to use, and low fidelity of published accounts of the method has been reported. There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McNicholas, Chris, Lennox, Laura, Woodcock, Thomas, Bell, Derek, Reed, Julie E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6560463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30886118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007605
_version_ 1783425975743152128
author McNicholas, Chris
Lennox, Laura
Woodcock, Thomas
Bell, Derek
Reed, Julie E
author_facet McNicholas, Chris
Lennox, Laura
Woodcock, Thomas
Bell, Derek
Reed, Julie E
author_sort McNicholas, Chris
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although widely recommended as an effective approach to quality improvement (QI), the Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycle method can be challenging to use, and low fidelity of published accounts of the method has been reported. There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by front-line teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use. Data collected from 39 front-line improvement teams provided an opportunity to retrospectively investigate PDSA cycle use and how strategies were modified to help improve this over time. METHODS: The fidelity of 421 PDSA cycles was reviewed using a predefined framework and statistical analysis examined whether fidelity changed over three annual rounds of projects. The experiences of project teams and QI support staff were investigated through document analysis and interviews. RESULTS: Although modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred; however, overall fidelity remained low. Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use and application in practice. These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand; that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA; and that PDSA is easy to apply. QI strategies that evolved to overcome these challenges included project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support and investment in training QI support staff. CONCLUSION: This study identifies support strategies that may help improve PDSA cycle fidelity. It provides an approach to assess minimum standards of fidelity which can be replicated elsewhere. The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6560463
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65604632019-06-26 Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study McNicholas, Chris Lennox, Laura Woodcock, Thomas Bell, Derek Reed, Julie E BMJ Qual Saf Original Research BACKGROUND: Although widely recommended as an effective approach to quality improvement (QI), the Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycle method can be challenging to use, and low fidelity of published accounts of the method has been reported. There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by front-line teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use. Data collected from 39 front-line improvement teams provided an opportunity to retrospectively investigate PDSA cycle use and how strategies were modified to help improve this over time. METHODS: The fidelity of 421 PDSA cycles was reviewed using a predefined framework and statistical analysis examined whether fidelity changed over three annual rounds of projects. The experiences of project teams and QI support staff were investigated through document analysis and interviews. RESULTS: Although modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred; however, overall fidelity remained low. Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use and application in practice. These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand; that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA; and that PDSA is easy to apply. QI strategies that evolved to overcome these challenges included project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support and investment in training QI support staff. CONCLUSION: This study identifies support strategies that may help improve PDSA cycle fidelity. It provides an approach to assess minimum standards of fidelity which can be replicated elsewhere. The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-05 2019-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6560463/ /pubmed/30886118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007605 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Research
McNicholas, Chris
Lennox, Laura
Woodcock, Thomas
Bell, Derek
Reed, Julie E
Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study
title Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study
title_full Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study
title_fullStr Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study
title_full_unstemmed Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study
title_short Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study
title_sort evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve plan–do–study–act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed-methods study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6560463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30886118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007605
work_keys_str_mv AT mcnicholaschris evolvingqualityimprovementsupportstrategiestoimproveplandostudyactcyclefidelityaretrospectivemixedmethodsstudy
AT lennoxlaura evolvingqualityimprovementsupportstrategiestoimproveplandostudyactcyclefidelityaretrospectivemixedmethodsstudy
AT woodcockthomas evolvingqualityimprovementsupportstrategiestoimproveplandostudyactcyclefidelityaretrospectivemixedmethodsstudy
AT bellderek evolvingqualityimprovementsupportstrategiestoimproveplandostudyactcyclefidelityaretrospectivemixedmethodsstudy
AT reedjuliee evolvingqualityimprovementsupportstrategiestoimproveplandostudyactcyclefidelityaretrospectivemixedmethodsstudy