Article type
Abstract
Background: Health services are dynamic and complex. Implementing research evidence into practice can take many years, and researchers are often faced with multiple barriers. There is a myriad of studies labeled as quality improvement (QI) or quality assurance, evidence implementation, or innovation projects that attempt to bridge this evidence-to-practice gap. These studies and projects use a range of designs, methods, and approaches. These projects typically have similar features, but also inherent limitations in design due to small samples, lack of rigor, and limited generalizability. Many tools have been previously developed for assessing QI projects, but they are seldom used, as some are outdated or not appropriate for clinical projects. A pragmatic, domain-based tool for appraising quality of healthcare improvement, innovation, or implementation projects is needed to address these issues.
Objectives: This presentation describes phase 1 of the development process for a pragmatic domain-based tool that can be used by clinicians and/or researchers for determining quality of a healthcare improvement or implementation project.
Methods: Phase 1 involved item generation, which required identifying the criteria to be included in the tool. Relevant criteria for assessing the quality of QI projects were determined from a scoping review as well as systematic review evidence and existing validated checklists and tools.
Results: Phase 1 generated a comprehensive list of 56 criteria. After consultation with experts and stakeholders, it was agreed that 37 criteria were not applicable, resulting in a tool with 19-items, categorized under 4 domains: 1) problem and design, 2) context, 3) intervention and implementation, and 4) evaluation and sustainability.
Conclusion: Employing a methodology driven by both evidence and consensus, we identified relevant criteria for QI critical appraisal, across 4 distinct domains. In subsequent phases, these proposed criteria will undergo further refinement (phase 2) and testing for psychometric properties (phase 3). Refining and testing the tool will ensure its appropriateness and applicability to health practice to improve the quality of care provided to patients.
Objectives: This presentation describes phase 1 of the development process for a pragmatic domain-based tool that can be used by clinicians and/or researchers for determining quality of a healthcare improvement or implementation project.
Methods: Phase 1 involved item generation, which required identifying the criteria to be included in the tool. Relevant criteria for assessing the quality of QI projects were determined from a scoping review as well as systematic review evidence and existing validated checklists and tools.
Results: Phase 1 generated a comprehensive list of 56 criteria. After consultation with experts and stakeholders, it was agreed that 37 criteria were not applicable, resulting in a tool with 19-items, categorized under 4 domains: 1) problem and design, 2) context, 3) intervention and implementation, and 4) evaluation and sustainability.
Conclusion: Employing a methodology driven by both evidence and consensus, we identified relevant criteria for QI critical appraisal, across 4 distinct domains. In subsequent phases, these proposed criteria will undergo further refinement (phase 2) and testing for psychometric properties (phase 3). Refining and testing the tool will ensure its appropriateness and applicability to health practice to improve the quality of care provided to patients.