Advertisement

Amendments to Reporting of QI Interventions: Insights from the Concept of Affordances

  • Emilie BerardEmail author
  • Jean-Louis Denis
  • Olivier Saulpic
  • Philippe Zarlowski
Chapter
Part of the Organizational Behaviour in Health Care book series (OBHC)

Abstract

Quality Improvement (QI) interventions are used extensively to solve problems associated with the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare. However, outcome assessments show strong variations in the success of a given QI initiative across organizational settings. Therefore, a growing body of research focuses on the interplay between interventions and their context of implementation. This chapter builds on the healthcare and organization literature to illustrate, through the concept of affordances, the complex dynamics that accompany the introduction of technological innovations in organizational settings. Insights to complement existing healthcare models for the systematic analysis of QI interventions, such as MUSIQ and SQUIRE, are proposed. In particular, greater attention to the implications of intervention design for the enabling and constraining properties of QI technologies is suggested in order to improve the reporting of QI implementation.

Keywords

Quality improvement interventions Context Practice change Organizational change Affordances Managerial technologies SQUIRE 

References

  1. Bate, P., Robert, G., Fulop, N., Øvretveit, J., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2014). Perspectives on context. London: The Health Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Bérard, É. (2014). Management control artefacts: An enabling or constraining tool for action? Questioning the definition and uses of the concept of affordances from a management control perspective. In F.-X. de Vaujany, N. Mitev, P. Laniray, & E. Vaast (Eds.), Materiality and time (pp. 99–123). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Dixon-Woods, M., Bosk, C. L., Aveling, E. L., Goeschel, C. A., & Pronovost, P. J. (2011). Explaining Michigan: Developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Quarterly, 89(2), 167–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goodman, D., Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Baker, G. R., Barnsteiner, J., Foster, T. C., Gali, K., Hilden, J., Horwitz, L., & Kaplan, H. C. (2016). Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V. 2.0: Examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), e7–e7.Google Scholar
  5. Grimshaw, J. M., Thomas, R. E., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsay, C. R., Vale, L., Whitty, P., Eccles, M. P., Matowe, L., Shirran, L., Wensing, M., Dijkstra, R., & Donaldson, C. (2004). Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technology Assessment, 8(6), 1–72.Google Scholar
  6. Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., & Johnston, M. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. British Medical Journal, 348, g1687.Google Scholar
  7. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jarzabkowski, P., & Kaplan, S. (2014). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding ‘technologies of rationality’ in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones, K. S. (2003). What is an affordance? Ecological Psychology, Special Issue on Affordances, 15(2), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaplan, H. C., Brady, P. W., Dritz, M. C., Hooper, D. K., Linam, W., Froehle, C. M., & Margolis, P. (2010). The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: A systematic review of the literature. Milbank Quarterly, 88(4), 500–559.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplan, H. C., Froehle, C. M., Cassedy, A., Provost, L. P., & Margolis, P. A. (2013). An exploratory analysis of the model for understanding success in quality. Health Care Management Review, 38(4), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaplan, H. C., Provost, L. P., Froehle, C. M., & Margolis, P. A. (2012). The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): Building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 21(1), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kringos, D. S., Sunol, R., Wagner, C., Mannion, R., Michel, P., Klazinga, N. S., & Groene, O. (2015). The influence of context on the effectiveness of hospital quality improvement strategies: A review of systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 277.Google Scholar
  14. MeaH (ANAP). (2009). Nouvelle gouvernance et comptabilité analytique par pôles. CREA, CREO, TCCM, tableaux de bord, une aide méthodologique au dialogue de gestion.Google Scholar
  15. Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2015). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 46(11), 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ogrinc, G., Mooney, S. E., Estrada, C., Foster, T., Goldmann, D., Hall, L. W., Huizinga, M. M., Liu, S. K., Mills, P., & Neily, J. (2008). The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: Explanation and elaboration. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 17(Suppl 1), i13–i32.Google Scholar
  17. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Annals of the Academy of Management, 2(1), 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Øvretveit, J. (2011). Understanding the conditions for improvement: Research to discover which context influences affect improvement success. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(Suppl 1), i18–i23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pronovost, P., Goeschel, C. A., Colantuoni, E., Watson, S., Lubomski, L. H., Berenholtz, S. M., Thompson, D. A., Sinopoli, D. J., Cosgrove, S., & Sexton, J. B. (2010). Sustaining reductions in catheter related bloodstream infections in Michigan intensive care units: Observational study. British Medical Journal, 340, c309.Google Scholar
  20. Pronovost, P., Needham, D., Berenholtz, S., Sinopoli, D., Chu, H., Cosgrove, S., Sexton, B., Hyzy, R., Welsh, R., & Roth, G. (2006). An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. New England Journal of Medicine, 355(26), 2725–2732.Google Scholar
  21. Schouten, L. M. T., Hulscher, M. E. J. L., van Everdingen, J. J. E., Huijsman, R., & Grol, R. P. T. M. (2008). Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 336(7659), 1491–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shojania, K. G. (2013). Conventional evaluations of improvement interventions: More trials or just more tribulations? London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Stevens, D. P., & Shojania, K. G. (2011). Tell me about the context, and more. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(7), 557–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tomoaia-Cotisel, A., Scammon, D. L., Waitzman, N. J., Cronholm, P. F., Halladay, J. R., Driscoll, D. L., Solberg, L. I., Hsu, C., Tai-Seale, M., & Hiratsuka, V. (2013). Context matters: The experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change. The Annals of Family Medicine, 11(Suppl 1), S115–S123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emilie Berard
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jean-Louis Denis
    • 2
  • Olivier Saulpic
    • 3
  • Philippe Zarlowski
    • 3
  1. 1.ITESOSan Pedro TlaquepaqueMexico
  2. 2.Université de MontréalQuébecCanada
  3. 3.Management Control DepartmentESCP EuropeParisFrance

Personalised recommendations