How to specify healthcare process improvements collaboratively using rapid, remote consensus-building: a framework and a case study of its application
-
Published:2021-05-11
Issue:1
Volume:21
Page:
-
ISSN:1471-2288
-
Container-title:BMC Medical Research Methodology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Med Res Methodol
Author:
van der Scheer Jan W.ORCID, Woodward MatthewORCID, Ansari Akbar, Draycott TimORCID, Winter Cathy, Martin GrahamORCID, Kuberska KarolinaORCID, Richards NatalieORCID, Kern Ruth, Dixon-Woods MaryORCID, Sartori André, Paterson Andy, Unger-Lee Doro, Leeding Joann, Steer Luke, Andrews Amanda, Arya Rita, Bell Sarah F., Chaffer Denise, Cooney Andrew, Corry Rachel, Davies Mair G. P., Duffy Lisa, Everden Caroline, Fitzpatrick Theresa, Grant Courtney, Hellaby Mark, Herlihey Tracey A., Hignett Sue, Hookes Sarah, Ives Fran R., Jun Gyuchan T., Marsh Owen J., Matthews Tanya R., McKeown Celine, Merriman Alexandra, Miles Giulia, Millward Susan, Muchatata Neil, Newton David, Noble Valerie G., Page Pamela, Pargade Vincent, Pickering Sharon P., Pickup Laura, Richards Dale, Scarr Cerys, Sidhu Jyoti, Stevenson James, Tipney Ben, Tipper Stephen, Wailling Jo, Whalley-Lloyd Susan P., Wilhelm Christian, Wood Juliet J., ,
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Practical methods for facilitating process improvement are needed to support high quality, safe care. How best to specify (identify and define) process improvements – the changes that need to be made in a healthcare process – remains a key question. Methods for doing so collaboratively, rapidly and remotely offer much potential, but are under-developed. We propose an approach for engaging diverse stakeholders remotely in a consensus-building exercise to help specify improvements in a healthcare process, and we illustrate the approach in a case study.
Methods
Organised in a five-step framework, our proposed approach is informed by a participatory ethos, crowdsourcing and consensus-building methods: (1) define scope and objective of the process improvement; (2) produce a draft or prototype of the proposed process improvement specification; (3) identify participant recruitment strategy; (4) design and conduct a remote consensus-building exercise; (5) produce a final specification of the process improvement in light of learning from the exercise. We tested the approach in a case study that sought to specify process improvements for the management of obstetric emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a brief video showing a process for managing a post-partum haemorrhage in women with COVID-19 to elicit recommendations on how the process could be improved. Two Delphi rounds were then conducted to reach consensus.
Results
We gathered views from 105 participants, with a background in maternity care (n = 36), infection prevention and control (n = 17), or human factors (n = 52). The participants initially generated 818 recommendations for how to improve the process illustrated in the video, which we synthesised into a set of 22 recommendations. The consensus-building exercise yielded a final set of 16 recommendations. These were used to inform the specification of process improvements for managing the obstetric emergency and develop supporting resources, including an updated video.
Conclusions
The proposed methodological approach enabled the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to be captured and mobilised to specify process improvements in an area of pressing service need. This approach has the potential to address current challenges in process improvement, but will require further evaluation.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Epidemiology
Reference144 articles.
1. Brouwers MC, Spithoff K, Kerkvliet K, Alonso-Coello P, Burgers J, Cluzeau F, et al. Development and validation of a tool to assess the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(5):e205535. 2. Kredo T, Bernhardsson S, Machingaidze S, Young T, Louw Q, Ochodo E, et al. Guide to clinical practice guidelines: the current state of play. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28(1):122–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzv115. 3. Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A. Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4(1):212. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-212. 4. Grol R, Wensing M, Grimshaw J. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care (third edition). Oxford: Wiley; 2020. 5. Chassin MR, Loeb JM. High-reliability health care: getting there from Here. Milbank Q. 2013;91(3):459–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12023.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|