使用实施科学框架来确定质量改进学习协作的核心组成部分和可持续性特征。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Deborah A McNamara, Peter E Lonergan, Paul Rafferty, Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Catherine Hayes
{"title":"使用实施科学框架来确定质量改进学习协作的核心组成部分和可持续性特征。","authors":"Deborah A McNamara, Peter E Lonergan, Paul Rafferty, Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Catherine Hayes","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-13346-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation Science (IS) frameworks facilitate definition of core and optional components of innovations, interventions and programmes, which increases the likelihood of successful implementation and sustainment. We used IS frameworks to characterise a hospital-based interdisciplinary quality improvement learning collaborative (QILC) which was established to develop quality improvement (QI) capability among front-line staff. The aim was to identify factors that supported implementation, potential threats to sustainability and elements that may influence dissemination into other settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Of five IS frameworks evaluated, two were selected, the Active Implementation Framework (action-oriented, dependent on feedback loops and improvement cycles) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (enabled definition of core components). The QILC was mapped against the drivers and constructs of each.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Factors relating to the QILC's leadership; the generation of tension for change; and the use of both internal and external networks were central features in implementation. Key drivers included the characteristics of front-line ownership, iterative development and tribality of the QILC, each being central to QI methodology. Risks to sustainability included patchy implementation, a requirement for greater alignment with organisational priorities, requirement for coaching and recruitment of additional leaders to support succession planning.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IS provided frameworks for retrospective analysis of a QI learning collaborative and identified factors that threaten sustainability. This analysis should help guide formative evaluations of similar QI learning collaboratives and offer an organisational framework to facilitate successful replication within different parts of an organisation and across multiple settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1257"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of implementation science frameworks to identify core components and sustainability characteristics of a quality improvement learning collaborative.\",\"authors\":\"Deborah A McNamara, Peter E Lonergan, Paul Rafferty, Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Catherine Hayes\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-025-13346-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation Science (IS) frameworks facilitate definition of core and optional components of innovations, interventions and programmes, which increases the likelihood of successful implementation and sustainment. We used IS frameworks to characterise a hospital-based interdisciplinary quality improvement learning collaborative (QILC) which was established to develop quality improvement (QI) capability among front-line staff. The aim was to identify factors that supported implementation, potential threats to sustainability and elements that may influence dissemination into other settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Of five IS frameworks evaluated, two were selected, the Active Implementation Framework (action-oriented, dependent on feedback loops and improvement cycles) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (enabled definition of core components). The QILC was mapped against the drivers and constructs of each.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Factors relating to the QILC's leadership; the generation of tension for change; and the use of both internal and external networks were central features in implementation. Key drivers included the characteristics of front-line ownership, iterative development and tribality of the QILC, each being central to QI methodology. Risks to sustainability included patchy implementation, a requirement for greater alignment with organisational priorities, requirement for coaching and recruitment of additional leaders to support succession planning.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IS provided frameworks for retrospective analysis of a QI learning collaborative and identified factors that threaten sustainability. This analysis should help guide formative evaluations of similar QI learning collaboratives and offer an organisational framework to facilitate successful replication within different parts of an organisation and across multiple settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"1257\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482647/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13346-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13346-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:实施科学框架有助于确定创新、干预措施和规划的核心和可选组成部分,从而增加成功实施和维持的可能性。我们使用IS框架来描述基于医院的跨学科质量改进学习协作(QILC),该协作旨在开发一线员工的质量改进(QI)能力。目的是查明支持执行的因素、对可持续性的潜在威胁以及可能影响传播到其他环境的因素。方法:在评估的五个信息系统框架中,选择了两个,即主动实施框架(以行动为导向,依赖于反馈循环和改进周期)和实施研究综合框架(核心组件的启用定义)。QILC被映射到每个驱动程序和构造。结果:影响QILC领导能力的因素;为变革而产生的张力;内部和外部网络的使用是执行工作的中心特点。关键驱动因素包括一线所有权、迭代开发和QILC的部落性特征,每一个都是QI方法的核心。可持续性面临的风险包括执行不完善、要求与组织优先事项更加一致、需要培训和招聘额外的领导者以支持继任计划。结论:IS为QI学习协作的回顾性分析提供了框架,并确定了威胁可持续性的因素。这种分析应该有助于指导类似的QI学习协作的形成性评估,并提供一个组织框架,以促进在组织的不同部分和跨多个设置的成功复制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use of implementation science frameworks to identify core components and sustainability characteristics of a quality improvement learning collaborative.

Background: Implementation Science (IS) frameworks facilitate definition of core and optional components of innovations, interventions and programmes, which increases the likelihood of successful implementation and sustainment. We used IS frameworks to characterise a hospital-based interdisciplinary quality improvement learning collaborative (QILC) which was established to develop quality improvement (QI) capability among front-line staff. The aim was to identify factors that supported implementation, potential threats to sustainability and elements that may influence dissemination into other settings.

Methods: Of five IS frameworks evaluated, two were selected, the Active Implementation Framework (action-oriented, dependent on feedback loops and improvement cycles) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (enabled definition of core components). The QILC was mapped against the drivers and constructs of each.

Results: Factors relating to the QILC's leadership; the generation of tension for change; and the use of both internal and external networks were central features in implementation. Key drivers included the characteristics of front-line ownership, iterative development and tribality of the QILC, each being central to QI methodology. Risks to sustainability included patchy implementation, a requirement for greater alignment with organisational priorities, requirement for coaching and recruitment of additional leaders to support succession planning.

Conclusions: IS provided frameworks for retrospective analysis of a QI learning collaborative and identified factors that threaten sustainability. This analysis should help guide formative evaluations of similar QI learning collaboratives and offer an organisational framework to facilitate successful replication within different parts of an organisation and across multiple settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信