Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Nov;22(11):931-9.
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001722. Epub 2013 Jul 5.

Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators

Margie Sherwood Danz et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Nov.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Achieving quality improvement (QI) aims often requires local innovation. Without objective evidence review, innovators may miss previously tested approaches, rely on biased information, or use personal preferences in designing and implementing local QI programmes.

Aim: To develop a practical, responsive approach to evidence review for QI innovations aimed at both achieving the goals of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and developing an evidence-based QI culture.

Design: Descriptive organisational case report.

Methods: As part of a QI initiative to develop and spread innovations for achieving the Veterans Affairs (VA) PCMH (termed Patient Aligned Care Team, or PACT), we involved a professional evidence review team (consisting of review experts, an experienced librarian, and administrative support) in responding to the evidence needs of front-line primary care innovators. The review team developed a systematic approach to responsive innovation evidence review (RIER) that focused on innovator needs in terms of time frame, type of evidence and method of communicating results. To assess uptake and usefulness of the RIERs, and to learn how the content and process could be improved, we surveyed innovation leaders.

Results: In the first 16 months of the QI initiative, we produced 13 RIERs on a variety of topics. These were presented as 6-15-page summaries and as slides at a QI collaborative. The RIERs focused on innovator needs (eg, topic overviews, how innovations are carried out, or contextual factors relevant to implementation). All 17 innovators who responded to the survey had read at least one RIER; 50% rated the reviews as very useful and 31%, as probably useful.

Conclusions: These responsive evidence reviews appear to be a promising approach to integrating evidence review into QI processes.

Keywords: Evidence-based medicine; Medical homes; Quality improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Liu CF, Hedrick SC, Chaney EF, et al. cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in a primary care veteran population. Psychiatr Serv 2003;54:698–704 - PubMed
    1. Liu CF, Rubenstein LV, Kirchner JE, et al. Organizational Cost of quality improvement for depression care. Health Serv Res 2009;44:225–44 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goldberg HI, Wagner EH, Fihn SD, et al. A randomized controlled trial of CQI teams and academic detailing: can they alter compliance with guidelines?. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1998;24:130–42 - PubMed
    1. Solberg LI, Fischer LR, Wei F, et al. A CQI intervention to change the care of depression: a controlled study. Eff Clin Pract 2001;4:239–49 - PubMed
    1. McLaughlin C, Kaluzny A. Continuous quality improvement in health care: theory, implementation, and applications. London, UK: Jones and Bartlett Publishers International, 2004

Publication types