Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review

被引:4
|
作者
McCarthy, Siobhan Eithne [1 ]
Jabakhanji, Samira Barbara [2 ]
Martin, Jennifer [3 ]
Flynn, Maureen Alice [3 ]
Sorensen, Jan [2 ]
机构
[1] RCSI Univ Med & Hlth Sci, Grad Sch Healthcare Management, Dublin, Ireland
[2] RCSI Univ Med & Hlth Sci, Healthcare Outcomes Res Ctr, Dublin, Ireland
[3] Natl Qual Improvement Team, Dublin, Ireland
关键词
quality improvement; quality measurement; cost-effectiveness; quality improvement methodologies; evaluation methodology; LEAN; 6; SIGMA; ECONOMIC-EVALUATION; CONSCIOUS CARE; HEALTH; INTERVENTIONS; IMPLEMENTATION; EFFICIENCY; CLINICIAN; PROJECTS; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001319
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Effect of trauma quality improvement initiatives on outcomes and costs at community hospitals: A scoping review
    McIver, Reba
    Erdogan, Mete
    Parker, Robin
    Evans, Allyson
    Green, Robert
    Gomez, David
    Johnston, Tyler
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2024, 55 (06):
  • [2] Quality of reporting for qualitative studies in pediatric urologydA scoping review
    Mccloskey, Kyle
    Neuzil, Kevin
    Basak, Ram
    Chan, Katherine H.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2023, 19 (05) : 643 - 651
  • [3] Quality improvement studies in nursing homes: a scoping review
    Toles, Mark
    Colon-Emeric, Cathleen
    Moreton, Elizabeth
    Frey, Lauren
    Leeman, Jennifer
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [4] Quality improvement studies in nursing homes: a scoping review
    Mark Toles
    Cathleen Colón-Emeric
    Elizabeth Moreton
    Lauren Frey
    Jennifer Leeman
    BMC Health Services Research, 21
  • [5] Reporting feedback on healthcare outcomes to improve quality in care: a scoping review
    Ali, Mariam P.
    Visser, Elyke H.
    West, Rachel L.
    van Noord, Desiree
    van der Woude, C. Janneke
    van Deen, Welmoed K.
    IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2025, 20 (01):
  • [6] Improving the Quality of Quality Improvement Reporting Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 Guidelines
    Mueck, Krislynn M.
    Putnam, Luke R.
    Kao, Lillian S.
    JAMA SURGERY, 2016, 151 (04) : 311 - 312
  • [7] The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration
    Ogrinc, G.
    Mooney, S. E.
    Estrada, C.
    Foster, T.
    Goldmann, D.
    Hall, L. W.
    Huizinga, M. M.
    Liu, S. K.
    Mills, P.
    Neily, J.
    Nelson, W.
    Pronovost, P. J.
    Provost, L.
    Rubenstein, L. V.
    Speroff, T.
    Splaine, M.
    Thomson, R.
    Tomolo, A. M.
    Watts, B.
    QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2008, 17 : 13 - 32
  • [8] SQUIRE: Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence
    不详
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2008, 102 (10): : 667 - 667
  • [9] Quality improvement of reporting standards for ablative studies: where do we stand?
    Derweesh, Ithaar H.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 19 (05) : 6423 - 6423
  • [10] A systematic review of the quality and reporting standards of longitudinal biomarker studies in dementia
    Flicker, L.
    Noel-Storr, A.
    Ritchie, C. W.
    McShane, R.
    AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL ON AGEING, 2012, 31 : 18 - 18