Development of a Comprehensive Tool to Assess Rigor When Evaluating Quality Improvement Projects

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-06-29 DOI:10.1111/jep.70193

Kathryn Kynoch, Mary-Anne Ramis, Caroline de Moel-Mandel, Ritin Fernandez, Hanan Khalil

{"title":"Development of a Comprehensive Tool to Assess Rigor When Evaluating Quality Improvement Projects","authors":"Kathryn Kynoch, Mary-Anne Ramis, Caroline de Moel-Mandel, Ritin Fernandez, Hanan Khalil","doi":"10.1111/jep.70193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this study was to develop a pragmatic domain-based tool to Comprehensively Assess Rigor when Evaluating Quality Improvement projects (CARE-QI) that can be used by health professionals, researchers, or academics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An expert panel was recruited to provide consensus on the tool. The development of the CARE-QI instrument followed a three-stage methodology. Firstly, a scoping review was used to identify potential items for inclusion. Secondly, using these items, a draft version of the tool was developed by the researchers and finally a Delphi survey was initiated to reach consensus on the final items. Two rounds of surveys were required where participants rated their level of agreement with each item on a Likert scale from 1 not important to 5 very important. The final version was sent out in the third round. Participants could provide free text comments on the tool during all rounds.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 40 experts participated in the first round of the Delphi survey. Members consisted of international multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals including clinicians and researchers with an interest in quality improvement and evidence implementation. The final CARE-QI tool consists of 13 items within four-domains: problem and design, context, intervention and implementation, and evaluation and sustainability.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>A pragmatic domains-based tool has been developed, in collaboration with experts within the field, to comprehensively assess rigor when evaluating different types of clinical quality improvement projects. Further testing will confirm validity and reliability of the items within the tool.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70193","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70193","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop a pragmatic domain-based tool to Comprehensively Assess Rigor when Evaluating Quality Improvement projects (CARE-QI) that can be used by health professionals, researchers, or academics.

Patients and Methods

An expert panel was recruited to provide consensus on the tool. The development of the CARE-QI instrument followed a three-stage methodology. Firstly, a scoping review was used to identify potential items for inclusion. Secondly, using these items, a draft version of the tool was developed by the researchers and finally a Delphi survey was initiated to reach consensus on the final items. Two rounds of surveys were required where participants rated their level of agreement with each item on a Likert scale from 1 not important to 5 very important. The final version was sent out in the third round. Participants could provide free text comments on the tool during all rounds.

Results

A total of 40 experts participated in the first round of the Delphi survey. Members consisted of international multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals including clinicians and researchers with an interest in quality improvement and evidence implementation. The final CARE-QI tool consists of 13 items within four-domains: problem and design, context, intervention and implementation, and evaluation and sustainability.

Conclusion

A pragmatic domains-based tool has been developed, in collaboration with experts within the field, to comprehensively assess rigor when evaluating different types of clinical quality improvement projects. Further testing will confirm validity and reliability of the items within the tool.

查看原文本刊更多论文

开发一种全面的工具来评估质量改进项目的严谨性

本研究的目的是开发一种实用的基于领域的工具，在评估质量改进项目（CARE-QI）时全面评估严谨性，可供卫生专业人员、研究人员或学者使用。患者和方法招募了一个专家小组，就该工具提供共识。CARE-QI仪器的开发遵循三个阶段的方法。首先，使用范围审查来确定可能纳入的项目。其次，利用这些项目，研究人员开发了工具的草案版本，最后进行德尔菲调查，以就最终项目达成共识。需要进行两轮调查，参与者根据李克特量表对每个项目的同意程度进行评分，从1不重要到5非常重要。最终版本在第三轮投票中发出。参与者可以在所有回合中对工具提供免费的文本评论。结果共有40名专家参与了第一轮德尔菲调查。成员由国际多学科医疗保健专业人员组成，包括对质量改进和证据实施感兴趣的临床医生和研究人员。最终的CARE-QI工具包括四个领域中的13个项目：问题和设计、背景、干预和实施以及评估和可持续性。与该领域的专家合作，开发了一种实用的基于领域的工具，在评估不同类型的临床质量改进项目时全面评估严谨性。进一步的测试将确认工具内项目的有效性和可靠性。

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

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

143

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.