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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCarthy, Siobhán Eithne, Jabakhanji, Samira Barbara, Martin, Jennifer, Flynn, Maureen Alice, Sørensen, Jan
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