This review of health care team effectiveness literature from 1985 to 2004 distinguishes among intervention studies that compare team with usual (nonteam) care; intervention studies that examine the impact of team redesign on team effectiveness; and field studies that explore relationships between team context, structure, processes, and outcomes. The authors use an Integrated Team Effectiveness Model (ITEM) to summarize research findings and to identify gaps in the literature. Their analysis suggests that the type and diversity of clinical expertise involved in team decision making largely accounts for improvements in patient care and organizational effectiveness. Collaboration, conflict resolution, participation, and cohesion are most likely to influence staff satisfaction and perceived team effectiveness. The studies examined here underscore the importance of considering the contexts in which teams are embedded. The ITEM provides a useful framework for conceptualizing relationships between multiple dimensions of team context, structure, processes, and outcomes.

BackgroundGuidelines continue to be underutilized, and a variety of strategies to improve their use have been suboptimal. Modifying guideline features represents an alternative, but untested way to promote their use. The purpose of this study was to identify and define features that facilitate guideline use, and examine whether and how they are included in current guidelines.MethodsA guideline implementability framework was developed by reviewing the implementation science literature. We then examined whether guidelines included these, or additional implementability elements. Data were extracted from publicly available high quality guidelines reflecting primary and institutional care, reviewed independently by two individuals, who through discussion resolved conflicts, then by the research team.ResultsThe final implementability framework included 22 elements organized in the domains of adaptability, usability, validity, applicability, communicability, accommodation, implementation, and evaluation. Data were extracted from 20 guidelines on the management of diabetes, hypertension, leg ulcer, and heart failure. Most contained a large volume of graded, narrative evidence, and tables featuring complementary clinical information. Few contained additional features that could improve guideline use. These included alternate versions for different users and purposes, summaries of evidence and recommendations, information to facilitate interaction with and involvement of patients, details of resource implications, and instructions on how to locally promote and monitor guideline use. There were no consistent trends by guideline topic.ConclusionsNumerous opportunities were identified by which guidelines could be modified to support various types of decision making by different users. New governance structures may be required to accommodate development of guidelines with these features. Further research is needed to validate the proposed framework of guideline implementability, develop methods for preparing this information, and evaluate how inclusion of this information influences guideline use.

BackgroundOne way to improve quality and safety in healthcare organizations (HCOs) is through accreditation. Accreditation is a rigorous external evaluation process that comprises self-assessment against a given set of standards, an on-site survey followed by a report with or without recommendations, and the award or refusal of accreditation status. This study evaluates how the accreditation process helps introduce organizational changes that enhance the quality and safety of care.MethodsWe used an embedded multiple case study design to explore organizational characteristics and identify changes linked to the accreditation process. We employed a theoretical framework to analyze various elements and for each case, we interviewed top managers, conducted focus groups with staff directly involved in the accreditation process, and analyzed self-assessment reports, accreditation reports and other case-related documents.ResultsThe context in which accreditation took place, including the organizational context, influenced the type of change dynamics that occurred in HCOs. Furthermore, while accreditation itself was not necessarily the element that initiated change, the accreditation process was a highly effective tool for (i) accelerating integration and stimulating a spirit of cooperation in newly merged HCOs; (ii) helping to introduce continuous quality improvement programs to newly accredited or not-yet-accredited organizations; (iii) creating new leadership for quality improvement initiatives; (iv) increasing social capital by giving staff the opportunity to develop relationships; and (v) fostering links between HCOs and other stakeholders. The study also found that HCOs' motivation to introduce accreditation-related changes dwindled over time.ConclusionsWe conclude that the accreditation process is an effective leitmotiv for the introduction of change but is nonetheless subject to a learning cycle and a learning curve. Institutions invest greatly to conform to the first accreditation visit and reap the greatest benefits in the next three accreditation cycles (3 to 10 years after initial accreditation). After 10 years, however, institutions begin to find accreditation less challenging. To maximize the benefits of the accreditation process, HCOs and accrediting bodies must seek ways to take full advantage of each stage of the accreditation process over time.

No abstract

No abstract