Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Value of small sample sizes in rapid-cycle quality improvement projects 2: assessing fidelity of implementation for improvement interventions
  1. Edward Etchells1,2,
  2. Thomas Woodcock3
  1. 1 Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2 Centre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3 NIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London England, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Edward Etchells, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Centre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S, Canada; edward.etchells{at}sunnybrook.ca

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

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.

Introduction

Fidelity is the degree to which a change is implemented as intended. Improvement project teams should measure fidelity, because if the change is not implemented, nothing will change. However, measurement resources are usually limited, especially in the early stages of implementation. A frequent problem in quality improvement is that people waste time collecting too much data. A previous paper1 showed how to demonstrate local gaps in care with very small samples of 5–10 patients. In evaluative clinical trials, the goal is to detect small differences between groups with precise estimates of these differences. By contrast, local quality improvement is often asking whether local performance meets a specific standard, such as 80% compliance with a guideline. If local performance is poor, small samples of 5–10 patients may be large enough to demonstrate a gap in care. In this paper, our goal is to offer some general guidelines to measuring fidelity of implementation on small samples in the face of constrained measurement resources.

Our target audience is healthcare improvers who have:

  • Identified a local gap in care.

  • Analysed the causes of this gap.

  • Developed a change theory to address the gap.

  • Created an initial change concept to be tested and refined locally.

A hypothetical scenario

A hospital-based improvement team is focused on medication reconciliation. Medication reconciliation refers to efforts to avoid unintentional changes to medication regimens at transition points such as hospital admission and discharge.2 The team has conducted several small audits showing important gaps in the local system of medication reconciliation. The team has designed a new medication reconciliation form and is keen to start Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) rapid improvement cycles. The hospital director wants the new medication reconciliation form implemented broadly as soon as possible. One member of the team wonders about conducting a randomised controlled trial of the new form. The …

View Full Text