Change search
Refine search result
1 - 6 of 6
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Batalden, Maren
    et al.
    Department of Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA, United States.
    Batalden, Paul B.
    Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. IMPROVE (Improvement, innovation, and leadership in health and welfare). Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States.
    Margolis, Peter
    Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
    Seid, Michael
    Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
    Armstrong, Gail
    College of Nursing, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States.
    Opipari-Arrigan, Lisa
    Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
    Hartung, Hans
    Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Hospital Crosshouse, Kilmarnock, East Ayrshire, United Kingdom.
    Coproduction of healthcare service2016In: BMJ Quality and Safety, ISSN 2044-5415, E-ISSN 2044-5423, Vol. 25, no 7, p. 509-517Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Efforts to ensure effective participation of patients in healthcare are called by many names - patient centredness, patient engagement, patient experience. Improvement initiatives in this domain often resemble the efforts of manufacturers to engage consumers in designing and marketing products. Services, however, are fundamentally different than products; unlike goods, services are always 'coproduced'. Failure to recognise this unique character of a service and its implications may limit our success in partnering with patients to improve health care. We trace a partial history of the coproduction concept, present a model of healthcare service coproduction and explore its application as a design principle in three healthcare service delivery innovations. We use the principle to examine the roles, relationships and aims of this interdependent work. We explore the principle's implications and challenges for health professional development, for service delivery system design and for understanding and measuring benefit in healthcare services.

  • 2.
    Ericsson, Carin
    et al.
    Cardiology and Speciality Medicine Centre, Region Ostergotland, Linkoping, Sweden .
    Skagerström, Janna
    Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
    Schildmeijer, Kristina
    Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
    Årestedt, Kristofer
    Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
    Broström, Anders
    Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Dep. of Nursing Science. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. ADULT. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Region Ostergotland, Linkoping, Sweden.
    Pakpour, Amir H.
    Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Dep. of Nursing Science. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran.
    Nilsen, Per
    Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
    Can patients contribute to safer care in meetings with healthcare professionals? A cross-sectional survey of patient perceptions and beliefs.2019In: BMJ Quality and Safety, ISSN 2044-5415, E-ISSN 2044-5423, Vol. 28, no 8, p. 657-666, article id bmjqs-2018-008524Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' perceptions of their meetings with healthcare professionals and the extent to which they believe they can influence patient safety in these meetings.

    DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of patients using a study-specific questionnaire. Data were analysed using both parametric and non-parametric statistics.

    SETTING: The study was conducted in primary and secondary care in three county councils in southeast Sweden by means of a survey questionnaire despatched in January 2017.

    PARTICIPANTS: Survey data were collected from 1445 patients, 333 of whom were complainants (patients who had filed a complaint about being harmed in healthcare) and 1112 regular patients (patients recruited from healthcare units).

    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' perceptions of meetings with physicians and nurses, beliefs concerning patients' contributions to safer care and whether the patients had suffered harm in healthcare during the past 10 years.

    RESULTS: Most respondents reported that it was easy to ask physicians and nurses questions (84.9% and 86.6%) and to point out if something felt odd in their care (77.7% and 80.7%). In general, complainants agreed to a higher extent compared with regular patients that patients can contribute to safer care (mean 1.92 and 2.13, p<0.001). Almost one-third (31.2%) of the respondents (both complainants and regular patients) reported that they had suffered harm in healthcare during the past 10 years.

    CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents believed that healthcare professionals can facilitate patient interaction and increase patient safety by encouraging patients to ask questions and take an active part in their care. Further research will need to identify strategies to support such questioning in routine practice and ensure that it achieves its intended goals.

  • 3.
    Goodman, Daisy
    et al.
    Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, USA.
    Ogrinc, Greg
    Veterans Health Administration, USA.
    Davies, Louise
    Veterans Health Administration, USA.
    Baker, G. Ross
    University of Toronto, Canada.
    Barnsteiner, Jane
    University of Pennsylvania, USA.
    Gali, Kari
    Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital, USA.
    Hilden, Joanne
    Colorado Children’s Hospital, USA.
    Horwitz, Leora
    New York University, USA.
    Kaplan, Heather C.
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, USA.
    Leis, Jerome
    University of Toronto, Canada.
    Matulis, John C.
    Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, USA.
    Michie, Susan
    University College, UK.
    Miltner, Rebecca
    University of Alabama, USA.
    Neily, Julia
    Veterans Health Administration, USA.
    Nelson, William A.
    Geisel School of Medicine, USA.
    Niedner, Matthew
    University of Michigan Medical Center, USA.
    Oliver, Brant
    MGH Institute of Health Professions, USA.
    Rutman, Lori
    Seattle Children’s Hospital, USA.
    Thomson, Richard
    Newcastle University, UK.
    Thor, Johan
    Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. IMPROVE (Improvement, innovation, and leadership in health and welfare).
    Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: Examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature2016In: BMJ Quality and Safety, ISSN 2044-5415, E-ISSN 2044-5423, Vol. 25, no 12, article id e7Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Since its publication in 2008, SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) has contributed to the completeness and transparency of reporting of quality improvement work, providing guidance to authors and reviewers of reports on healthcare improvement work. In the interim, enormous growth has occurred in understanding factors that influence the success, and failure, of healthcare improvement efforts. Progress has been particularly strong in three areas: the understanding of the theoretical basis for improvement work; the impact of contextual factors on outcomes; and the development of methodologies for studying improvement work. Consequently, there is now a need to revise the original publication guidelines. To reflect the breadth of knowledge and experience in the field, we solicited input from a wide variety of authors, editors and improvement professionals during the guideline revision process. This Explanation and Elaboration document (E&E) is a companion to the revised SQUIRE guidelines, SQUIRE 2.0. The product of collaboration by an international and interprofessional group of authors, this document provides examples from the published literature, and an explanation of how each reflects the intent of a specific item in SQUIRE. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist authors in writing clearly, precisely and completely about systematic efforts to improve the quality, safety and value of healthcare services. Authors can explore the SQUIRE statement, this E&E and related documents in detail at http://www.squire-statement.org.

  • 4. Jones, L.
    et al.
    Pomeroy, L.
    Robert, Glenn
    Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. IMPROVE (Improvement, innovation, and leadership in health and welfare). Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.
    Burnett, S.
    Anderson, J. E.
    Fulop, N. J.
    How do hospital boards govern for quality improvement?: A mixed methods study of 15 organisations in England2017In: BMJ Quality and Safety, ISSN 2044-5415, E-ISSN 2044-5423, Vol. 26, no 12, p. 978-986Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background

    Health systems worldwide are increasingly holding boards of healthcare organisations accountable for the quality of care that they provide. Previous empirical research has found associations between certain board practices and higher quality patient care; however, little is known about how boards govern for quality improvement (QI).

    Methods

    We conducted fieldwork over a 30-month period in 15 healthcare provider organisations in England as part of a wider evaluation of a board-level organisational development intervention. Our data comprised board member interviews (n=65), board meeting observations (60 hours) and documents (30 sets of board meeting papers, 15 board minutes and 15 Quality Accounts). We analysed the data using a framework developed from existing evidence of links between board practices and quality of care. We mapped the variation in how boards enacted governance of QI and constructed a measure of QI governance maturity. We then compared organisations to identify the characteristics of those with mature QI governance.

    Results

    We found that boards with higher levels of maturity in relation to governing for QI had the following characteristics: explicitly prioritising QI; balancing short-term (external) priorities with long-term (internal) investment in QI; using data for QI, not just quality assurance; engaging staff and patients in QI; and encouraging a culture of continuous improvement. These characteristics appeared to be particularly enabled and facilitated by board-level clinical leaders.

    Conclusions

    This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how boards govern for QI. The identified characteristics of organisations with mature QI governance seemed to be enabled by active clinical leadership. Future research should explore the biographies, identities and work practices of board-level clinical leaders and their role in organisation-wide QI. 

  • 5.
    Jones, Lorelei
    et al.
    School of Health Sciences, Bangor University, G-Bangor, United Kingdom.
    Pomeroy, Linda
    Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
    Robert, Glenn
    Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. IMPROVE (Improvement, innovation, and leadership in health and welfare). Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
    Burnett, Susan
    Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
    Anderson, Janet E.
    Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
    Morris, Stephen
    Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
    Capelas Barbosa, Estela
    Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
    Fulop, Naomi J.
    Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
    Explaining organisational responses to a board-level quality improvement intervention: Findings from an evaluation in six providers in the English National Health Service2019In: BMJ Quality and Safety, ISSN 2044-5415, E-ISSN 2044-5423, Vol. 28, no 3, p. 198-204Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background: Healthcare systems worldwide are concerned with strengthening board-level governance of quality. We applied Lozeau, Langley and Denis' typology (transformation, customisation, loose coupling and corruption) to describe and explain the organisational response to an improvement intervention in six hospital boards in England.

    Methods: We conducted fieldwork over a 30-month period as part of an evaluation in six healthcare provider organisations in England. Our data comprised board member interviews (n=54), board meeting observations (24 hours) and relevant documents.

    Results: Two organisations transformed their processes in a way that was consistent with the objectives of the intervention, and one customised the intervention with positive effects. In two further organisations, the intervention was only loosely coupled with organisational processes, and participation in the intervention stopped when it competed with other initiatives. In the final case, the intervention was corrupted to reinforce existing organisational processes (a focus on external regulatory requirements). The organisational response was contingent on the availability of 'slack' - expressed by participants as the 'space to think' and 'someone to do the doing' - and the presence of a functioning board.

    Conclusions: Underperforming organisations, under pressure to improve, have little time or resources to devote to organisation-wide quality improvement initiatives. Our research highlights the need for policy-makers and regulators to extend their focus beyond the choice of intervention, to consider how the chosen intervention will be implemented in public sector hospitals, how this will vary between contexts and with what effects. We provide useful information on the necessary conditions for a board-level quality improvement intervention to have positive effects.

  • 6.
    Ogrinc, Greg
    et al.
    Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, United States.
    Davies, Louise
    Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, United States.
    Goodman, Daisy
    Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, United States.
    Batalden, Paul B.
    Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. IMPROVE (Improvement, innovation, and leadership in health and welfare). Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
    Davidoff, Frank
    Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, NH, United States.
    Stevens, David
    Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, NH, United States.
    SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process2016In: BMJ Quality and Safety, ISSN 2044-5415, E-ISSN 2044-5423, Vol. 25, no 12, p. 986-992Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org). © Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited.

1 - 6 of 6
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf