Background Quality and safety improvement programmes advance the standard of care delivered by health organisations but have been shown to be less effective than anticipated. Implementing improvement programmes require a greater understanding of the impact of the social context and strategies that engage staff.
Objective To investigate factors that shaped the development of interprofessional improvement initiatives in a health organisation.
Methods Data are drawn from a large-scale longitudinal action research study examining interprofessional learning and practice. The setting is an autonomous bounded health jurisdiction in Australia. Within the study, health professionals have conceptualised more than 111 interprofessional improvement projects, of which 76 have evolved into ongoing activities. Textual data were analysed using emergent coding and descriptive statistics.
Results Initiatives were shaped by six determinants: site receptivity; team issues; leadership; impact on healthcare relations; impact on quality and safety issues; and extent to which the projects became institutionally embedded. Initiatives that engaged participants and progressed were characterised by and displayed flexible leadership, and ongoing refinement and maturity over time. The local organisational context and initiatives coevolved.
Conclusions Improvement initiatives are necessary for improved quality of care and patient safety but are difficult to implement and sustain. The factors identified to develop them are constantly under challenge in health services. Improving healthcare quality will, in part, depend upon the ability to provide more flexible and supportive social contexts.
- Quality improvement
- interprofessional learning
- interprofessional practice
- quality and safety
- healthcare quality
- healthcare quality improvement
- qualitative research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This research was supported under Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects funding scheme (project number LP0775514).
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the UNSW/Health Research Human Research Ethics Advisory panel, approval number 09-10-006.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.