Jones et al. - 2019 - Why is reporting quality improvement so hard A qu.pdf (280.37 kB)
Download file

Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care

Download (280.37 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 08.08.2019, 08:28 by Emma Leanne Jones, Mary Dixon-Woods, Graham P. Martin
Objectives Quality improvement (QI) may help to avert or mitigate the risks of suboptimal care, but it is often poorly reported in the healthcare literature. We aimed to identify the influences on reporting QI in the area of perioperative care, with a view to informing improvements in reporting QI across healthcare. Design Qualitative interview study. Setting Healthcare and academic organisations in Australia, Europe and North America. Participants Stakeholders involved in or influencing the publication, writing or consumption of reports of QI studies in perioperative care. Results Forty-Two participants from six countries took part in the study. Participants included 15 authors (those who write QI reports), 12 consumers of QI reports (practitioners who apply QI research in practice), 11 journal editors and 4 authors of reporting guidelines. Participants identified three principal challenges in achieving high-quality QI reporting. First, the broad scope of QI reporting-ranging from small local projects to multisite research across different disciplines-causes uncertainty about where QI work should be published. Second, context is fundamental to the success of a QI intervention but is difficult to report in ways that support replication and development. Third, reporting is adversely affected by both proximal influences (such as lack of time to write up QI) and more distal, structural influences (such as norms about the format and content of biomedical research reporting), leading to incomplete reporting of QI findings. Conclusions Divergent terminology and understandings of QI, along with existing reporting norms and the challenges of capturing context adequately yet succinctly, make for challenges in reporting QI. We offer suggestions for improvement.

Funding

This work was completed as part of a PhD studentship funded by the Health Foundation. Writing up of this paper was supported in part by MDW’s Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator award WT097899. GPM acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands (CLAHRC EM). MDW and GPM are supported by the Health Foundation’s grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute. THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation–an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. MDW is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0617-10026).

History

Citation

BMJ Open, 2019, 9:e030269.

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF LIFE SCIENCES/School of Medicine/Department of Health Sciences

Version

VoR (Version of Record)

Published in

BMJ Open

Publisher

BMJ Publishing Group

eissn

2044-6055

Acceptance date

20/06/2019

Copyright date

2019

Available date

08/08/2019

Publisher version

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/7/e030269

Language

en

Usage metrics

Categories

Keywords

Licence

Exports