Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul 22:9:91.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0091-2.

Quality improvement collaboratives and the wisdom of crowds: spread explained by perceived success at group level

Affiliations

Quality improvement collaboratives and the wisdom of crowds: spread explained by perceived success at group level

Michel L A Dückers et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Many studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) on the quality of healthcare. This article addresses an underexplored topic, namely the use of QICs as 'intentional spread strategy.' Its objective is to predict the dissemination of projects within hospitals participating in a change programme based on several QICs. We tested whether the average project success at QIC level (based on opinions of individual project team leaders) explains the dissemination of projects one year later.

Findings: After one year, 148 project team leaders of 16 hospitals participating in the two-year programme were asked to rate the success of their improvement project on a scale from 1 to 10. At the end of the second year, the programme coordinator of each hospital provided information on the second-year dissemination. Average success scores and dissemination statistics were calculated for each QIC (N = 12). The non-parametric correlation between team leader judgment and dissemination rate at QIC level is 0.73 (P < 0.01).

Conclusions: Previous work, focusing on the team and hospital level, showed which factors contributed to local success stories. It also illustrated how successes play a role in dissemination processes within programme hospitals. The current study suggests that we cannot ignore the extent to which the dissemination potential of individual projects is defined by their QIC. Aggregated team leader judgments at the QIC level might predict the future dissemination in participating organizations. The findings, however, need to be replicated in larger, independent samples.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of relationships.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Teams nested in hospitals and QICs.

References

    1. Øvretveit J, Bate P, Cleary P, Cretin S, Gustafson D, McInnes K, McLeod H, Molfenter T, Plsek P, Robert G. Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:345–351. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.345. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schouten LMT, Hulscher MEJL, Van Everdingen JJE, Huijsman R, Grol RPTM. Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. Br Med J. 2008;336:1491–1494. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39570.749884.BE. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dückers MLA, Wagner C, Groenewegen PP: Developing and testing an instrument to measure the presence of conditions for successful implementation of quality improvement collaboratives.BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:172. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hulscher ME, Schouten LM, Grol RP, Buchan H. Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show? BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;1:19–31. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000651. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mills PD, Weeks WB. Characteristics of successful quality improvement teams: lessons from five collaborative projects in the VHA. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2004;30:152–162. - PubMed

Publication types