↓ Skip to main content

Transferring skills in quality collaboratives focused on improving patient logistics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Transferring skills in quality collaboratives focused on improving patient logistics
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3051-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen, Jeroen van Wijngaarden

Abstract

A quality improvement collaborative, often used by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is used to educate healthcare professionals and improve healthcare at the same time. However, no prior research has been done on the knowledge and skills healthcare professionals need to achieve improvements or the extent to which quality improvement collaboratives help enhance both knowledge and skills. Our research focused on quality improvement collaboratives aiming to improve patient logistics and tried to identify which knowledge and skills are required and to what extent these were enhanced during the QIC. We defined skills important for logistic improvements in a three-phase Delphi study. Based on the Delphi results we made a questionnaire. We surveyed participants in a national quality improvement collaborative to assess the skills rated as 1) important, 2) available and 3) improved during the collaborative. At two sense-making meetings, experts reflected on our findings and hypothesized on how to improve (logistics) collaboratives. The Delphi study found 18 skills relevant for reducing patient access time and 21 for reducing throughput time. All skills retrieved from the Delphi study were scored as 'important' in the survey. Teams especially lacked soft skills connected to project and change management. Analytical skills increased the most, while more reflexive skills needed for the primary goal of the collaborative (reduce access and throughput times) increased modestly. At two sense-making meetings, attendees suggested four improvements for a quality improvement collaborative: 1) shift the focus to project- and change management skills; 2) focus more on knowledge transfer to colleagues; 3) teach participants to adapt the taught principles to their own situations; and 4) foster intra-project reflexive learning to translate gained insights to other projects (inter-project learning). Our findings seem to suggest that Quality collaboratives could benefit if more attention is paid to the transfer of 'soft skills' (e.g. change, project management and communication skills) and reflexive skills (e.g. adjusting logistics principles to specific situations and inter-project translation of experiences).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 21 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 22 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,481,952
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,183
of 7,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,426
of 328,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#191
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.