Cargando…
Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review
OBJECTIVES: To profile the aims and characteristics of quality improvement (QI) initiatives conducted in Ireland, to review the quality of their reporting and to assess outcomes and costs. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Goo...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8330587/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34341016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001319 |
_version_ | 1783732751285878784 |
---|---|
author | McCarthy, Siobhán Eithne Jabakhanji, Samira Barbara Martin, Jennifer Flynn, Maureen Alice Sørensen, Jan |
author_facet | McCarthy, Siobhán Eithne Jabakhanji, Samira Barbara Martin, Jennifer Flynn, Maureen Alice Sørensen, Jan |
author_sort | McCarthy, Siobhán Eithne |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To profile the aims and characteristics of quality improvement (QI) initiatives conducted in Ireland, to review the quality of their reporting and to assess outcomes and costs. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, Lenus and rian.ie. Two researchers independently screened abstracts (n=379) and separately reviewed 43 studies identified for inclusion using a 70-item critique tool. The tool was based on the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS), an appraisal instrument for QI intervention publications, and health economics reporting criteria. After reaching consensus, the final dataset was analysed using descriptive statistics. To support interpretations, findings were presented at a national stakeholder workshop. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: QI studies implemented and evaluated in Ireland and published between January 2015 and April 2020. RESULTS: The 43 studies represented various QI interventions. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (n=37), conducted in hospitals (n=38). Studies mainly aimed to improve the ‘effectiveness’ (65%), ‘efficiency’ (53%), ‘timeliness’ (47%) and ‘safety’ (44%) of care. Fewer aimed to improve ‘patient-centredness’ (30%), ‘value for money’ (23%) or ‘staff well-being’ (9%). No study aimed to increase ‘equity’. Seventy per cent of studies described 14 of 16 QI-MQCS dimensions. Least often studies reported the ‘penetration/reach’ of an initiative and only 35% reported health outcomes. While 53% of studies expressed awareness of costs, only eight provided at least one quantifiable figure for costs or savings. No studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of the QI. CONCLUSION: Irish QI studies included in our review demonstrate varied aims and high reporting standards. Strategies are needed to support greater stimulation and dissemination of QI beyond the hospital sector and awareness of equity issues as QI work. Systematic measurement and reporting of costs and outcomes can be facilitated by integrating principles of health economics in QI education and guidelines. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8330587 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83305872021-08-20 Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review McCarthy, Siobhán Eithne Jabakhanji, Samira Barbara Martin, Jennifer Flynn, Maureen Alice Sørensen, Jan BMJ Open Qual Research & Reporting Methodology OBJECTIVES: To profile the aims and characteristics of quality improvement (QI) initiatives conducted in Ireland, to review the quality of their reporting and to assess outcomes and costs. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, Lenus and rian.ie. Two researchers independently screened abstracts (n=379) and separately reviewed 43 studies identified for inclusion using a 70-item critique tool. The tool was based on the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS), an appraisal instrument for QI intervention publications, and health economics reporting criteria. After reaching consensus, the final dataset was analysed using descriptive statistics. To support interpretations, findings were presented at a national stakeholder workshop. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: QI studies implemented and evaluated in Ireland and published between January 2015 and April 2020. RESULTS: The 43 studies represented various QI interventions. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (n=37), conducted in hospitals (n=38). Studies mainly aimed to improve the ‘effectiveness’ (65%), ‘efficiency’ (53%), ‘timeliness’ (47%) and ‘safety’ (44%) of care. Fewer aimed to improve ‘patient-centredness’ (30%), ‘value for money’ (23%) or ‘staff well-being’ (9%). No study aimed to increase ‘equity’. Seventy per cent of studies described 14 of 16 QI-MQCS dimensions. Least often studies reported the ‘penetration/reach’ of an initiative and only 35% reported health outcomes. While 53% of studies expressed awareness of costs, only eight provided at least one quantifiable figure for costs or savings. No studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of the QI. CONCLUSION: Irish QI studies included in our review demonstrate varied aims and high reporting standards. Strategies are needed to support greater stimulation and dissemination of QI beyond the hospital sector and awareness of equity issues as QI work. Systematic measurement and reporting of costs and outcomes can be facilitated by integrating principles of health economics in QI education and guidelines. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8330587/ /pubmed/34341016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001319 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) 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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research & Reporting Methodology McCarthy, Siobhán Eithne Jabakhanji, Samira Barbara Martin, Jennifer Flynn, Maureen Alice Sørensen, Jan Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review |
title | Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review |
title_full | Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review |
title_short | Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review |
title_sort | reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in ireland: a scoping review |
topic | Research & Reporting Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8330587/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34341016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001319 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mccarthysiobhaneithne reportingstandardsoutcomesandcostsofqualityimprovementstudiesinirelandascopingreview AT jabakhanjisamirabarbara reportingstandardsoutcomesandcostsofqualityimprovementstudiesinirelandascopingreview AT martinjennifer reportingstandardsoutcomesandcostsofqualityimprovementstudiesinirelandascopingreview AT flynnmaureenalice reportingstandardsoutcomesandcostsofqualityimprovementstudiesinirelandascopingreview AT sørensenjan reportingstandardsoutcomesandcostsofqualityimprovementstudiesinirelandascopingreview |