Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving the quality of care. Data sources Relevant studies through Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. Study selection Two reviewers independently extracted data on topics, participants, setting, study design, and outcomes. Data synthesis Of 1104 articles identified, 72 were included in the study. Twelve reports representing nine studies (including two randomised controlled trials) used a controlled design to measure the effects of the quality improvement collaborative intervention on care processes or outcomes of care. Systematic review of these nine studies showed moderate positive results. Seven studies (including one randomised controlled trial) reported an effect on some of the selected outcome measures. Two studies (including one randomised controlled trial) did not show any significant effect. Conclusions The evidence underlying quality improvement collaboratives is positive but limited and the effects cannot be predicted with great certainty. Considering that quality improvement collaboratives seem to play a key part in current strategies focused on accelerating improvement, but may have only modest effects on outcomes at best, further knowledge of the basic components effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and success factors is crucial to determine the value of quality improvement collaboratives.

These outcomes provide guidance to organisers, participants and researchers of collaboratives. To advance knowledge in this area we propose a more systematic exploration of potential determinants by applying theory and practice-based knowledge and by performing methodologically sound studies that clearly set out to test such determinants.

ObjectivesTo describe healthcare providers’ symptoms evoked by patient safety incidents (PSIs), the duration of these symptoms and the association with the degree of patient harm caused by the incident.DesignCross-sectional survey.Setting32 Dutch hospitals that participate in the ‘Peer Support Collaborative’.Participants4369 healthcare providers (1619 doctors and 2750 nurses) involved in a PSI at any time during their career.InterventionsAll doctors and nurses working in direct patient care in the 32 participating hospitals were invited via email to participate in an online survey.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrevalence of symptoms, symptom duration and its relationship with the degree of patient harm.ResultsIn total 4369 respondents were involved in a PSI and completely filled in the questionnaire. Of these, 462 reported having been involved in a PSI with permanent harm or death during the last 6 months. This had a personal, professional impact as well as impact on effective teamwork requirements. The impact of a PSI increased when the degree of patient harm was more severe. The most common symptom was hypervigilance (53.0%). The three most common symptoms related to teamwork were having doubts about knowledge and skill (27.0%), feeling unable to provide quality care (15.6%) and feeling uncomfortable within the team (15.5%). PSI with permanent harm or death was related to eightfold higher likelihood of provider-related symptoms lasting for more than 1 month and ninefold lasting longer than 6 months compared with symptoms reported when the PSI caused no harm.ConclusionThe impact of PSI remains an underestimated problem. The higher the degree of harm, the longer the symptoms last. Future studies should evaluate how these data can be integrated in evidence-based support systems.

PurposeThis article considers the question if measurable improvements are achieved in the quality of care in stroke services by using a Breakthrough collaborative quality improvement model.Context of caseDespite the availability of explicit criteria, evidence based guidelines, national protocols and examples of best practices; stroke care in the Netherlands did not improve substantially yet. For that reason a national collaborative started in 2002 to improve integrated stroke care in 23 self selected stroke services.Data sourcesCharacteristics of sites, teams, aims and changes were assessed by using a questionnaire and monthly self-reports of teams. Progress in achieving significant quality improvement has been assessed on a five point Likert scale (IHI score).Case descriptionThe stroke services (n=23) formed multidisciplinary teams, which worked together in a collaborative based on the IHI Breakthrough Series Model. Teams received instruction in quality improvement, reviewed self reported performance data, identified bottlenecks and improvement goals, and implemented “potentially better practices” based on criteria from the Edisse study, evidence based guidelines, own ideas and expert opinion.Conclusion and discussionQuality of care has been improved in most participating stroke services. Eighty-seven percent of the teams have improved their care significantly on at least one topic. About 34% of the teams have achieved significant improvement on all aims within the time frame of the project. The project has contributed to the further development and spread of integrated stroke care in the Netherlands.

Background and Purpose-The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a quality improvement program for improving stroke care and the determinants of success at the team and hospital levels. Method-For 16 months, 23 multidisciplinary stroke service teams participated in a quality improvement collaborative designed to set up stroke services and reduce the length of hospital stay (LOHS). We monitored the LOHS and the discharge delay during the project and measured indicators of well organized stroke services at baseline and after the intervention. A multiple and multilevel regression model was used to relate the outcome variables to the team and hospital characteristics. National LOHS figures served as reference data. Results-Data regarding 4549 stroke patients were included in the analyses. The LOHS decreased significantly from 18.3 to 13.3 days. The mean LOHS varied substantially (9.2 to 20.9 days) after the intervention. Teams with higher team functioning scores showed lower LOHS scores and higher scores for the indicators of well organized stroke services.Team characteristics explain almost 40% of the variance in LOHS and 53% in the indicators of well organized stroke care. Conclusion-Participation in a national quality improvement collaborative effected a significant decrease of the LOHS and a significant increase in the presence of key features of stroke services. Variation in ability to reduce the LOHS and increase key features of stroke services were related to team functioning. The data suggest that the composite of team functioning is pivotal in quality-of-care improvement and may need specific attention in any quality improvement program. (Stroke. 2008;39:2515-2521.)