RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluating quality improvement at scale: development of a reporting methodology for board-level insights in a UK mental health Trust
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.02.13.20022475
DO 10.1101/2020.02.13.20022475
A1 Kia-Chong Chua
A1 Barbara Grey
A1 Michael Holland
A1 Claire Henderson
A1 Nick Sevdalis
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/16/2020.02.13.20022475.abstract
AB Background The question of whether quality improvement (QI) actually improves quality in a large healthcare organisation requires overview of a diverse range of QI projects. To-date, an organisational overview remains elusive due to heterogeneity across project- specific outcomes. Where organisational-level assessments of QI success have been offered, the extent to which they could be attributed to QI activity remains unclear. Reporting on a retrospective evaluation of return on investment of QI in a UK National Health Service (NHS) Trust, we discuss the development of a reporting methodology for providing board-level insights on organisational needs and achievements in QI.Methods A researcher-in-residence worked with a resident QI team to develop and conduct a retrospective evaluation of QI projects in a large healthcare organisation in the UK that specialises in mental health. Using a survey, we assessed QI project outcomes and explored costs and benefits, as well as contextual, input and process factors that might be associated with whether QI projects led to a change in routine practice.Findings Out of 52 QI projects, 10 led to a change in routine practice. Across a diverse range of projects, time invested by staff is an opportunity cost that could serve as a common denominator for return on investment. Retrospective data accrual proved problematic for measuring benefits. Odds ratios from logistic regressions show that process factors had more apparent impact on project outcomes than contextual and input factors. Service user engagement and implementation of measurement plan showed major impact on project outcome. Of note, if QI projects had documentation for Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, the odds of effecting a change in routine practice were much higher.Conclusions To inform organisational-level decision making and optimise return on investment from QI in large healthcare organisations, systematic monitoring of QI activity needs prospective data accrual, consistent measurement and coherent iterations. We recommend that this be undertaken by a resident QI unit with the data categories explored in this study. Developing a reporting methodology for routine organisational-level monitoring can be an asset for improving practice, one that is pivotal for a learning healthcare system.Competing Interest StatementNS is the director of the London Safety and Training Solutions Ltd, which offers training in patient safety, implementation solutions and human factors to healthcare organisations. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Funding StatementNS’ research is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. NS and KCC are members of King’s Improvement Science, which offers co-funding to the NIHR ARC South London and comprises a specialist team of improvement scientists and senior researchers based at King’s College London. Its work is funded by King’s Health Partners (Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity and the Maudsley Charity. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the ESRC or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are available upon request from the corresponding author