A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Mapping quality improvement education initiatives to Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines. | LitMetric

Aims And Objectives: To explore the rigour of nurse-led quality improvement projects involving education, training or continuing professional development, and examine evaluation frameworks contained within.

Background: Healthcare organisations invest significantly in quality improvement in the pursuit of cost-effective, safe, evidence-based and person-centred care. Consequently, efforts to examine the success of investment in quality improvement activities are prominent, against a backdrop of rising healthcare expenditure, reforms, consumer expectations and feedback.

Design: A qualitative document analysis of quality improvement projects located in a local health district repository was undertaken.

Methods: N = 3004 projects were screened against inclusion criteria, with n = 160 projects remaining for analysis. Projects were mapped to an adapted version of the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE), specifically the education extension (SQUIRE-EDU). Additionally, project evaluation frameworks were positioned within Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation model. The SQUIRE checklist was also applied in line with EQUATOR guidelines.

Results: Of n = 60 completed projects assessed against four broad SQUIRE-EDU categories and relevant criteria, n = 36 were assessed not to have met any categories, n = 14 projects met one category, n = 8 projects met two categories, and n = 2 projects met three categories. None of the completed projects met all four SQUIRE-EDU categories. There was insufficient documentation relating to evaluation frameworks in n = 133 projects to position within Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.

Conclusions: Scientific rigour should underpin all quality improvement efforts. We recommend that SQUIRE international consensus guidelines (full or abridged) should guide both the design and reporting of all local quality improvement efforts.

Relevance To Clinical Practice: To be of value to the expansion of evidence-based practice, quality improvement platforms should be designed to reflect the structural logic, rigour and reporting recommendations being advocated in consensus reporting guidelines. This may require investment in training and development programs, and identification of governance and support systems. No Patient or Public Contribution, as the study was retrospective in nature and involved a health service repository of quality improvement projects accessible to health service staff only.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16610DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

quality improvement
44
projects met
16
projects
12
improvement projects
12
evaluation frameworks
12
improvement
11
quality
10
standards quality
8
improvement reporting
8
reporting excellence
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!