Failure factors in healthcare quality improvement programmes: reviewing two decades of the scientific field

IF 3.4 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Noe Vaz, Claudia Araujo
{"title":"Failure factors in healthcare quality improvement programmes: reviewing two decades of the scientific field","authors":"Noe Vaz, Claudia Araujo","doi":"10.1108/ijqss-06-2021-0080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Quality improvement is imperative for healthcare organisations. Despite the importance of the topic, many efforts have been wasted on failed improvement programs. Various studies have tried to identify the failure factors in improvement programs, but the divergences in the results hamper this research field’s evolution. This study reviews scientific activity from 2000 to 2019 on failure factors in Healthcare Quality Improvement Programs (HCQIP) to help academics and managers understand the field’s evolution better. This research intends to answer four questions on failure factors in HCQIP: Who are the most active authors in this field?; Which journals have been used as diffusion channels?; What are the themes addressed the most in this field?; and What are the themes considered to be emerging?</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The authors conducted a bibliometric-based literature review on a sample of 5,137 articles, and 104 studies were included in this review, covering a longitudinal analysis in two periods (P1: 2000–2010 and P2: 2011–2019). Performance analysis, citation, co-citation, co-words analysis and network mapping identified the authors in this scientific field, the journals, the number of articles, along with the current and emerging themes that reveal the latent structure of the factors associated with failures in HCQIP.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The number of articles in P2 (83 studies) is almost four times higher than in P1 (21 studies). The results reveal a dynamic field attracting more authors since 2013, expanding from 5 to 42 journals that publish on the topic. Furthermore, research has evolved from comprehensive manufacturing programs to more theory-based and contextualised health care. In this sense, the recent literature (P2) suggests that failure factors related to quality improvement programs can be minimised if these initiatives align with the human centrality paradigm.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>Analysing the evolution of failure factors in HCQIP helps redesign research and management for better quality health outcomes. Knowledge of the scientific community trajectory over nearly 20 years enables better planning from the patient's perspective and contributes to reducing failures in quality programs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study contributes to developing the field of failure factors in HCQIP by providing researchers and managers with an evolutionary, systematic and pioneering view of the theme.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":14403,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqss-06-2021-0080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Quality improvement is imperative for healthcare organisations. Despite the importance of the topic, many efforts have been wasted on failed improvement programs. Various studies have tried to identify the failure factors in improvement programs, but the divergences in the results hamper this research field’s evolution. This study reviews scientific activity from 2000 to 2019 on failure factors in Healthcare Quality Improvement Programs (HCQIP) to help academics and managers understand the field’s evolution better. This research intends to answer four questions on failure factors in HCQIP: Who are the most active authors in this field?; Which journals have been used as diffusion channels?; What are the themes addressed the most in this field?; and What are the themes considered to be emerging?

Design/methodology/approach

The authors conducted a bibliometric-based literature review on a sample of 5,137 articles, and 104 studies were included in this review, covering a longitudinal analysis in two periods (P1: 2000–2010 and P2: 2011–2019). Performance analysis, citation, co-citation, co-words analysis and network mapping identified the authors in this scientific field, the journals, the number of articles, along with the current and emerging themes that reveal the latent structure of the factors associated with failures in HCQIP.

Findings

The number of articles in P2 (83 studies) is almost four times higher than in P1 (21 studies). The results reveal a dynamic field attracting more authors since 2013, expanding from 5 to 42 journals that publish on the topic. Furthermore, research has evolved from comprehensive manufacturing programs to more theory-based and contextualised health care. In this sense, the recent literature (P2) suggests that failure factors related to quality improvement programs can be minimised if these initiatives align with the human centrality paradigm.

Practical implications

Analysing the evolution of failure factors in HCQIP helps redesign research and management for better quality health outcomes. Knowledge of the scientific community trajectory over nearly 20 years enables better planning from the patient's perspective and contributes to reducing failures in quality programs.

Originality/value

This study contributes to developing the field of failure factors in HCQIP by providing researchers and managers with an evolutionary, systematic and pioneering view of the theme.

医疗保健质量改进方案的失败因素:回顾二十年的科学领域
目的医疗保健机构必须提高质量。尽管这个话题很重要,但许多努力都浪费在了失败的改进计划上。各种各样的研究试图确定改进计划中的失效因素,但结果的分歧阻碍了这一研究领域的发展。本研究回顾了2000年至2019年关于医疗保健质量改进计划(HCQIP)失败因素的科学活动,以帮助学者和管理者更好地了解该领域的演变。本研究旨在回答关于HCQIP失效因素的四个问题:谁是该领域最活跃的作者?哪些期刊被用作传播渠道?在这个领域中讨论最多的主题是什么?哪些主题被认为正在出现?设计/方法/方法作者对5137篇文献样本进行了文献计量学的文献综述,其中包括104项研究,涵盖两个时期(P1: 2000-2010和P2: 2011-2019)的纵向分析。绩效分析、引文、共被引、共词分析和网络映射确定了该科学领域的作者、期刊、文章数量,以及当前和新兴主题,揭示了与HCQIP失败相关因素的潜在结构。研究结果:P2的论文数量(83篇)几乎是P1(21篇)的四倍。结果显示,自2013年以来,这一动态领域吸引了更多的作者,发表这一主题的期刊从5家增加到42家。此外,研究已经从全面的制造计划发展到更基于理论和情境化的医疗保健。从这个意义上说,最近的文献(P2)表明,如果这些举措与人为中心范式保持一致,则与质量改进计划相关的失败因素可以最小化。实际意义分析HCQIP失败因素的演变有助于重新设计研究和管理,以获得更高质量的健康结果。对近20年来科学界发展轨迹的了解能够从患者的角度更好地规划,并有助于减少高质量项目的失败。原创性/价值本研究为研究者和管理者提供了一个进化的、系统的、开创性的视角,有助于HCQIP失效因素研究领域的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences seeks to explore various aspects of quality and services as closely interrelated phenomena in the context of ongoing transformation processes of organizations and societies. Thus the journals'' scope is not limited to micro perspectives of organizational and management related issues. It seeks further to explore patterns, behaviors, processes, mechanisms, principles and consequences related to quality and services in a broad range of organizational and social/global processes. These processes embrace cultural, economic, social, environmental and even global dimensions in order to better understand the past, to better diagnose the current situations and hence to design better the future. The journal seeks to embrace a holistic view of quality and service sector management and explicitly promotes the emerging field of ‘quality and service sciences’.The journal is an open forum and one of the main channels for communication of multi- and inter- disciplinary research and practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信