Search

Objective: To analyze the challenges encountered during surgical quality improvement interventions, and explain the relative success of different intervention strategies., Summary Background Data: Understanding why and how interventions work is vital for developing improvement science. The S3 Program of studies tested whether combining interventions addressing culture and system was more likely to result in improvement than either approach alone. Quantitative results supported this theory. This qualitative study investigates why this happened, what aspects of the interventions and their implementation most affected improvement, and the implications for similar programs., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with hospital staff (23) and research team members (11) involved in S3 studies. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method, with coding conducted concurrently with data collection. Themes were identified and developed in relation to the program theory behind S3., Results: The superior performance of combined intervention over single intervention arms appeared related to greater awareness and ability to act, supporting the S3 hypothesis. However, we also noted unforeseen differences in implementation that seemed to amplify this difference. The greater ambition and more sophisticated approach in combined intervention arms resulted in requests for more intensive expert support, which seemed crucial in their success. The contextual challenges encountered have potential implications for the replicability and sustainability of the approach., Conclusions: Our findings support the S3 hypothesis, triangulating with quantitative results and providing an explanatory account of the causal relationship between interventions and outcomes. They also highlight the importance of implementation strategies, and of factors outside the control of program designers.

Background: Modern medical care requires numerous patient handovers/handoffs. Handover error is recognised as a potential hazard in patient care, and the information error rate has been estimated at 13%. While accurate, reliable handover is essential to high quality care, uncertainty exists as to how intrahospital handover can be improved. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the quality and/or safety of the intrahospital handover process., Methods: We searched for articles on handover improvement interventions in EMBASE, MEDLINE, HMIC and CINAHL between January 2002 and July 2012. We considered studies of: staff knowledge and skills, staff behavioural change, process change or patient outcomes., Results: 631 potentially relevant papers were identified from which 29 papers were selected for inclusion (two randomised controlled trials and 27 uncontrolled studies). Most studies addressed shift-change handover and used a median of three outcome measures, but there was no outcome measure common to all. Poor study design and inconsistent reporting methods made it difficult to reach definite conclusions. Information transfer was improved in most relevant studies, while clinical outcome improvement was reported in only two of 10 studies. No difference was noted in the likelihood of success across four types of intervention., Conclusions: The current literature does not confirm that any methodology reliably improves the outcomes of clinical handover, although information transfer may be increased. Better study designs and consistency of the terminology used to describe handover and its improvement are urgently required., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)