Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

被引:35
|
作者
Mery, Gustavo [1 ]
Dobrow, Mark J. [1 ]
Baker, G. Ross [1 ]
Im, Jennifer [1 ]
Brown, Adalsteinn [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Inst Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, Canada
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2017年 / 7卷 / 02期
关键词
PUBLIC-HEALTH DEPARTMENTS; TRAINING-PROGRAM; EDUCATING PHARMACY; SAFETY EDUCATION; CARE; CONTEXT; PERFORMANCE; SUCCESS; COMPETENCE; CAPABILITY;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012431
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: Leading health systems have invested in substantial quality improvement (QI) capacity building, but little is known about the aggregate effect of these investments at the health system level. We conducted a systematic review to identify key steps and elements that should be considered for system-level evaluations of investment in QI capacity building. Methods: We searched for evaluations of QI capacity building and evaluations of QI training programmes. We included the most relevant indexed databases in the field and a strategic search of the grey literature. The latter included direct electronic scanning of 85 relevant government and institutional websites internationally. Data were extracted regarding evaluation design and common assessment themes and components. Results: 48 articles met the inclusion criteria. 46 articles described initiative-level non-economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, while 2 studies included economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, also at the initiative level. No system-level QI capacity building/training evaluations were found. We identified 17 evaluation components that fit within 5 overarching dimensions (characteristics of QI training; characteristics of QI activity; individual capacity; organisational capacity and impact) that should be considered in evaluations of QI capacity building. 8 key steps in return-on-investment (ROI) assessments in QI capacity building were identified: (1) planning-stakeholder perspective; (2) planning-temporal perspective; (3) identifying costs; (4) identifying benefits; (5) identifying intangible benefits that will not be included in the ROI estimation; (6) discerning attribution; (7) ROI calculations; (8) sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: The literature on QI capacity building evaluation is limited in the number and scope of studies. Our findings, summarised in a Framework to Guide Evaluations of QI Capacity Building, can be used to start closing this knowledge gap.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Systematic Review of Approaches for Continuous Quality Improvement Capacity-Building
    Loper, Audrey C.
    Jensen, Todd M.
    Farley, Amanda B.
    Morgan, Jenille D.
    Metz, Allison J.
    JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICE, 2022, 28 (02): : E354 - E361
  • [2] Building Effective Quality Improvement Programs for Liver Disease: A Systematic Review of Quality Improvement Initiatives
    Tapper, Elliot B.
    CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2016, 14 (09) : 1256 - +
  • [3] Building and evaluating cloud robotic systems: A systematic review
    Dawarka, Viraj
    Bekaroo, Girish
    ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER-INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING, 2022, 73
  • [4] Building Perinatal Case Manager Capacity Using Quality Improvement
    Fitzgerald, Elaine
    JOURNAL OF PERINATAL EDUCATION, 2015, 24 (01): : 37 - 47
  • [5] Building capacity for continuous quality improvement (CQI): A pilot study
    Hunter, Sarah B.
    Rutter, Carolyn M.
    Ober, Allison J.
    Booth, Marika S.
    JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT, 2017, 81 : 44 - 52
  • [6] EFFECTIVENESS OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT COACHING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Ballengee, Lindsay
    Ruston, Shari
    Lewinski, Allison
    Hwang, Soohyun
    Zullig, Leah
    Ricks, Katherine
    Brahmajothi, Mulugu
    Moore, Thomasena
    Blalock, Dan
    Cantrell, Sarah
    Ear, Belinda
    Williams, John
    Gierisch, Jennifer
    Goldstein, Karen M.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2021, 36 (SUPPL 1) : S130 - S130
  • [7] Continuous quality improvement in nephrology: a systematic review
    Julie Wright Nunes
    F. Jacob Seagull
    Panduranga Rao
    Jonathan H. Segal
    Nandita S. Mani
    Michael Heung
    BMC Nephrology, 17
  • [8] Continuous quality improvement in nephrology: a systematic review
    Nunes, Julie Wright
    Seagull, F. Jacob
    Rao, Panduranga
    Segal, Jonathan H.
    Mani, Nandita S.
    Heung, Michael
    BMC NEPHROLOGY, 2016, 17 : 1 - 9
  • [9] Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review
    Wells, Susan
    Tamir, Orly
    Gray, Jonathon
    Naidoo, Dhevaksha
    Bekhit, Mark
    Goldmann, Don
    BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2018, 27 (03) : 226 - 240
  • [10] Quality Assessment of the Literature on Quality Improvement in PICUs: A Systematic Review
    Inata, Yu
    Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Etsuko
    Ogawa, Yuko
    Hatachi, Takeshi
    Takeuchi, Muneyuki
    PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2021, 22 (06) : 553 - 560