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

BMJ Open Quality

article

Siobhán Eithne McCarthy¹  Samira Barbara Jabakhanji²  Jennifer Martin³  Maureen Alice Flynn³  Jan Sørensen² 

[1] Graduate School of Healthcare Management , RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences;Healthcare Outcomes Research Centre , RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences;National Quality Improvement Team , Health Service Executive

关键词: quality improvement;    quality measurement;    cost-effectiveness;    quality improvement methodologies;    evaluation methodology;   

DOI  :  10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001319

学科分类：药学

来源: BMJ Publishing Group

【 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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY-NC|CC BY|CC BY-NC-ND