How to specify healthcare process improvements collaboratively using rapid, remote consensus-building: a framework and a case study of its application

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.

Funder

Health Foundation

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Informatics,Epidemiology

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