Mapping quality improvement education initiatives to Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines

Author:

Lamont Scott12ORCID,Murray Andrew1ORCID,Tetik Emine13,Yeo Jiaming1,Blair Bianca1

Affiliation:

1. Prince of Wales Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia

2. Casual Academic, Southern Cross University Lismore New South Wales Australia

3. Faculty of Medicine & Health University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia

Abstract

AbstractAims and ObjectivesTo explore the rigour of nurse‐led quality improvement projects involving education, training or continuing professional development, and examine evaluation frameworks contained within.BackgroundHealthcare organisations invest significantly in quality improvement in the pursuit of cost‐effective, safe, evidence‐based and person‐centred care. Consequently, efforts to examine the success of investment in quality improvement activities are prominent, against a backdrop of rising healthcare expenditure, reforms, consumer expectations and feedback.DesignA qualitative document analysis of quality improvement projects located in a local health district repository was undertaken.MethodsN = 3004 projects were screened against inclusion criteria, with n = 160 projects remaining for analysis. Projects were mapped to an adapted version of the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE), specifically the education extension (SQUIRE‐EDU). Additionally, project evaluation frameworks were positioned within Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation model. The SQUIRE checklist was also applied in line with EQUATOR guidelines.ResultsOf n = 60 completed projects assessed against four broad SQUIRE‐EDU categories and relevant criteria, n = 36 were assessed not to have met any categories, n = 14 projects met one category, n = 8 projects met two categories, and n = 2 projects met three categories. None of the completed projects met all four SQUIRE‐EDU categories. There was insufficient documentation relating to evaluation frameworks in n = 133 projects to position within Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.ConclusionsScientific rigour should underpin all quality improvement efforts. We recommend that SQUIRE international consensus guidelines (full or abridged) should guide both the design and reporting of all local quality improvement efforts.Relevance to Clinical PracticeTo be of value to the expansion of evidence‐based practice, quality improvement platforms should be designed to reflect the structural logic, rigour and reporting recommendations being advocated in consensus reporting guidelines. This may require investment in training and development programs, and identification of governance and support systems.No Patient or Public Contribution, as the study was retrospective in nature and involved a health service repository of quality improvement projects accessible to health service staff only.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

General Medicine,General Nursing

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3