Nurses on quality improvement teams: how do they benefit?

Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments

Background

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are widely used in healthcare; however, the effectiveness of the methods is variable, and evidence about the extent to which contextual and other factors modify effects is limited. Investigating the relationship between these factors and CQI outcomes poses challenges for those evaluating CQI, among the most complex of which relate to the measurement of modifying factors. We aimed to provide guidance to support the selection of measurement instruments by systematically collating, categorising, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments.

Methods

Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments, reference lists of systematic reviews, and citations and references of the main report of instruments. Study selection: The scope of the review was determined by a conceptual framework developed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). Papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring a construct encompassed by the framework were included. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarising and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorised using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care.

Results

We identified 186 potentially relevant instruments, 152 of which were analysed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-four instruments measured constructs relevant to primary care, with content measuring CQI implementation and use (19 instruments), organizational context (51 instruments), and individual factors (21 instruments). Forty-one instruments were included for full review. Development methods were often pragmatic, rather than systematic and theory-based, and evidence supporting measurement properties was limited.

Conclusions

Many instruments are available for evaluating CQI, but most require further use and testing to establish their measurement properties. Further development and use of these measures in evaluations should increase the contribution made by individual studies to our understanding of CQI and enhance our ability to synthesise evidence for informing policy and practice.

Predicting changes in staff morale and burnout at community health centers participating in the health disparities collaboratives

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of changes in staff morale and burnout associated with participation in a quality improvement (QI) initiative at community health centers (HCs).

DATA SOURCES

Surveys of staff at 145 HCs participating in the Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDC) program in 2004. DATA COLLECTION AND STUDY DESIGN: Self-administered questionnaire data collected from 622 HC staff (68 percent response rate) were analyzed to identify predictors of reported change in staff morale and burnout. Predictive categories included outcomes of the QI initiative, levels of HDC integration, institutional support, the use of incentives, and demographic characteristics of respondents and centers.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Perceived improvements in staff morale and reduced likelihood of staff burnout were associated with receiving personal recognition, career promotion, and skill development opportunities. Similar outcomes were associated with sufficient funding and personnel, fair distribution of work, effective training of new hires, and consistent provider participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Having sufficient personnel available to administer the HDC was found to be the strongest predictor of team member satisfaction. However, a number of low-cost, reasonably modifiable, organizational and leadership characteristics were also identified, which may facilitate improvements in staff morale and reduce the likelihood of staff burnout at HCs participating in the HDC.

Integrating palliative and critical care: description of an intervention

A large proportion of deaths in the United States occur in the intensive care unit (ICU) or after a stay in the ICU, and there is evidence of problems in the quality of care these patients and their families receive. In an effort to respond to this problem, we developed a multifaceted, nurse-focused, quality improvement intervention that is based on self-efficacy theory applied to changing clinician behavior. We have called the intervention "Integrating Palliative and Critical Care." This five-component intervention includes: 1) critical care clinician education to increase knowledge and awareness of the principles and practice of palliative care in the ICU, 2) critical care clinician local champions to provide role modeling and promote attitudinal change concerning end-of-life care, 3) academic detailing of nurse and physician ICU directors to identify and address local barriers to improving end-of-life care in each ICU, 4) feedback of local quality improvement data, and 5) system supports including implementation of palliative care order forms, family information pamphlets, and other system supports for providing palliative care in the ICU. The goal of this report is to describe the conceptual model that led to the development of the intervention, and for each of the five components, we describe the theoretical and empirical support for each component, the content of the component, and the lessons we have learned in implementing the component. Future reports will need to examine the ability of the interventions to improve outcomes of palliative care in the ICU.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress which may lead to serious mental and physical health problems.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of work and person-directed interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials Specialised Register, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Occupational Health Field database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For work-directed interventions interrupted time series and prospective cohort were also eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were performed where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs, three cluster-randomised trials and two crossover trials, including a total of 1,564 participants in intervention groups and 1,248 controls. Two trials were of high quality. Interventions were grouped into 1) person-directed: cognitive-behavioural, relaxation, music-making, therapeutic massage and multicomponent; and 2) work-directed: attitude change and communication, support from colleagues and participatory problem solving and decision-making, and changes in work organisation. There is limited evidence that person-directed interventions can reduce stress (standardised mean difference or SMD -0.85; 95% CI -1.21, -0.49); burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (weighted mean difference or WMD -5.82; 95% CI -11.02, -0.63) and lack of Personal Accomplishment (WMD -3.61; 95% CI -4.65, -2.58); and anxiety: state anxiety (WMD -9.42; 95% CI -16.92, -1.93) and trait anxiety (WMD -6.91; 95% CI -12.80, -1.01). One trial showed that stress remained low a month after intervention (WMD -6.10; 95% CI -8.44, -3.76). Another trial showed a reduction in Emotional Exhaustion (Mean Difference or MD -2.69; 95% CI -4.20, -1.17) and in lack of Personal Accomplishment (MD -2.41; 95% CI -3.83, -0.99) maintained up to two years when the intervention was boosted with refresher sessions. Two studies showed a reduction that was maintained up to a month in state anxiety (WMD -8.31; 95% CI -11.49, -5.13) and trait anxiety (WMD -4.09; 95% CI -7.60, -0.58). There is limited evidence that work-directed interventions can reduce stress symptoms (Mean Difference or MD -0.34; 95% CI -0.62, -0.06); Depersonalization (MD -1.14; 95% CI -2.18, -0.10), and general symptoms (MD -2.90; 95% CI -5.16, -0.64). One study showed that the difference in stress symptom level was nonsignificant at six months (MD -0.19; 95% CI -0.49, 0.11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence is available for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce stress levels in healthcare workers. Larger and better quality trials are needed.