James McGowan, Bothaina Attal, Isla Kuhn, Lisa Hinton, Tim Draycott, Graham P Martin, Mary Dixon-Woods
{"title":"Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010-2023.","authors":"James McGowan, Bothaina Attal, Isla Kuhn, Lisa Hinton, Tim Draycott, Graham P Martin, Mary Dixon-Woods","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large-scale improvement programmes are a frequent response to quality and safety problems in health systems globally, but have mixed impact. The extent to which they meet criteria for programme quality, particularly in relation to transparency of reporting and evaluation, is unclear.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify large-scale improvement programmes focused on intrapartum care implemented in English National Health Service maternity services in the period 2010-2023, and to conduct a structured quality assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We drew on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance to inform the design and reporting of our study. We identified relevant programmes using multiple search strategies of grey literature, research databases and other sources. Programmes that met a prespecified definition of improvement programme, that focused on intrapartum care and that had a retrievable evaluation report were subject to structured assessment using selected features of programme quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 1434 records via databases and other sources. 14 major initiatives in English maternity services could not be quality assessed due to lack of a retrievable evaluation report. Quality assessment of the 15 improvement programmes meeting our criteria for assessment found highly variable quality and reporting. Programme specification was variable and mostly low quality. Only eight reported the evidence base for their interventions. Description of implementation support was poor and none reported customisation for challenged services. None reported reduction of inequalities as an explicit goal. Only seven made use of explicit patient and public involvement practices, and only six explicitly used published theories/models/frameworks to guide implementation. Programmes varied in their reporting of the planning, scope and design of evaluation, with weak designs evident.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Poor transparency of reporting and weak or absent evaluation undermine large-scale improvement programmes by limiting learning and accountability. This review indicates important targets for improving quality in large-scale programmes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":"704-715"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503041/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016606","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Large-scale improvement programmes are a frequent response to quality and safety problems in health systems globally, but have mixed impact. The extent to which they meet criteria for programme quality, particularly in relation to transparency of reporting and evaluation, is unclear.
Aim: To identify large-scale improvement programmes focused on intrapartum care implemented in English National Health Service maternity services in the period 2010-2023, and to conduct a structured quality assessment.
Methods: We drew on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance to inform the design and reporting of our study. We identified relevant programmes using multiple search strategies of grey literature, research databases and other sources. Programmes that met a prespecified definition of improvement programme, that focused on intrapartum care and that had a retrievable evaluation report were subject to structured assessment using selected features of programme quality.
Results: We identified 1434 records via databases and other sources. 14 major initiatives in English maternity services could not be quality assessed due to lack of a retrievable evaluation report. Quality assessment of the 15 improvement programmes meeting our criteria for assessment found highly variable quality and reporting. Programme specification was variable and mostly low quality. Only eight reported the evidence base for their interventions. Description of implementation support was poor and none reported customisation for challenged services. None reported reduction of inequalities as an explicit goal. Only seven made use of explicit patient and public involvement practices, and only six explicitly used published theories/models/frameworks to guide implementation. Programmes varied in their reporting of the planning, scope and design of evaluation, with weak designs evident.
Conclusions: Poor transparency of reporting and weak or absent evaluation undermine large-scale improvement programmes by limiting learning and accountability. This review indicates important targets for improving quality in large-scale programmes.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement.
The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.