Cargando…

Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS)

BACKGROUND: To create a theory-informed survey that quality improvement (QI) teams can use to understand stakeholder perceptions of an intervention. METHOD: We created the survey then performed a cross-sectional survey of QI stakeholders of three QI projects. The projects sought to: (1) reduce unpla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fris, Eric, Sedlock, Emily, Etchegaray, Jason, Ottosen, Madelene J, Pucio, Ronald, Mistry, Tejal, Saunders, Tamara, Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada, Thomas, Eric J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8671990/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34906964
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001332
_version_ 1784615265555709952
author Fris, Eric
Sedlock, Emily
Etchegaray, Jason
Ottosen, Madelene J
Pucio, Ronald
Mistry, Tejal
Saunders, Tamara
Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada
Thomas, Eric J
author_facet Fris, Eric
Sedlock, Emily
Etchegaray, Jason
Ottosen, Madelene J
Pucio, Ronald
Mistry, Tejal
Saunders, Tamara
Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada
Thomas, Eric J
author_sort Fris, Eric
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To create a theory-informed survey that quality improvement (QI) teams can use to understand stakeholder perceptions of an intervention. METHOD: We created the survey then performed a cross-sectional survey of QI stakeholders of three QI projects. The projects sought to: (1) reduce unplanned extubations in a neonatal intensive care unit; (2) maintain normothermia during colorectal surgery and (3) reduce specimen processing errors for ambulatory gastroenterology procedures. We report frequencies of responses to survey items, results of exploratory factor analysis, and how QI team leaders used the results. RESULTS: Overall we received surveys from 319 out of 386 eligible stakeholders (83% response rate, range for the three QI projects 57%–86%). The QI teams found that the survey results confirmed existing concerns (eg, the intervention would not make work easier) and revealed unforeseen concerns such as lack of consensus about the overall purpose of the intervention and its importance. The results of our factor analysis indicate that one 7-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha 0.9) can efficiently measure important aspects of stakeholder perceptions, and that two additional Likert-type items could add valuable information for leaders. Two QI team leaders made changes to their project based on survey responses that indicated the intervention made stakeholders’ jobs harder, and that there was no consensus about the purpose of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey was feasible for QI teams to use, and identified stakeholder perspectives about QI interventions that leaders used to alter their QI interventions to potentially increase the likelihood of stakeholder acceptance of the intervention.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8671990
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86719902021-12-28 Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS) Fris, Eric Sedlock, Emily Etchegaray, Jason Ottosen, Madelene J Pucio, Ronald Mistry, Tejal Saunders, Tamara Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada Thomas, Eric J BMJ Open Qual Original Research BACKGROUND: To create a theory-informed survey that quality improvement (QI) teams can use to understand stakeholder perceptions of an intervention. METHOD: We created the survey then performed a cross-sectional survey of QI stakeholders of three QI projects. The projects sought to: (1) reduce unplanned extubations in a neonatal intensive care unit; (2) maintain normothermia during colorectal surgery and (3) reduce specimen processing errors for ambulatory gastroenterology procedures. We report frequencies of responses to survey items, results of exploratory factor analysis, and how QI team leaders used the results. RESULTS: Overall we received surveys from 319 out of 386 eligible stakeholders (83% response rate, range for the three QI projects 57%–86%). The QI teams found that the survey results confirmed existing concerns (eg, the intervention would not make work easier) and revealed unforeseen concerns such as lack of consensus about the overall purpose of the intervention and its importance. The results of our factor analysis indicate that one 7-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha 0.9) can efficiently measure important aspects of stakeholder perceptions, and that two additional Likert-type items could add valuable information for leaders. Two QI team leaders made changes to their project based on survey responses that indicated the intervention made stakeholders’ jobs harder, and that there was no consensus about the purpose of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey was feasible for QI teams to use, and identified stakeholder perspectives about QI interventions that leaders used to alter their QI interventions to potentially increase the likelihood of stakeholder acceptance of the intervention. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8671990/ /pubmed/34906964 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001332 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 Original Research
Fris, Eric
Sedlock, Emily
Etchegaray, Jason
Ottosen, Madelene J
Pucio, Ronald
Mistry, Tejal
Saunders, Tamara
Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada
Thomas, Eric J
Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS)
title Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS)
title_full Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS)
title_fullStr Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS)
title_full_unstemmed Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS)
title_short Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS)
title_sort development and testing of the stakeholder quality improvement perspectives survey (squips)
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8671990/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34906964
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001332
work_keys_str_mv AT friseric developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips
AT sedlockemily developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips
AT etchegarayjason developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips
AT ottosenmadelenej developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips
AT pucioronald developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips
AT mistrytejal developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips
AT saunderstamara developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips
AT tomoaiacotiselandrada developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips
AT thomasericj developmentandtestingofthestakeholderqualityimprovementperspectivessurveysquips