Decision-maker roles in healthcare quality improvement projects: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that healthcare quality improvement (QI) projects are more successful when decision-makers are involved in the process. However, guidance regarding the engagement of decision-makers in QI projects is lacking. We conducted a scoping review to identify QI projects involving decision-makers published in the literature and to describe the roles decision-makers played. METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for scoping reviews, we systematically searched for all types of studies in English or French between 2002 and 2023 in: EMBASE, MEDLINE via PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Criteria for inclusion consisted of literature describing health sector QI projects that involved local, regional or system-level decision-makers. Descriptive analysis was performed. Drawing on QI and participatory research literature, the research team developed an inductive data extraction grid to provide a portrait of QI project characteristics, decision-makers' contributions, and advantages and challenges associated with their involvement. RESULTS: After screening and review, we retained 29 references. 18 references described multi-site projects and 11 were conducted in single sites. Local decision-makers' contributions were documented in 27 of the 29 references and regional decision-makers' contributions were documented in 12. Local decision-makers were more often active participants in QI processes, contributing toward planning, implementation, change management and capacity building. Regional decision-makers more often served as initiators and supporters of QI projects, contributing toward strategic planning, recruitment, delegation, coordination of local teams, as well as assessment and capacity building. Advantages of decision-maker involvement described in the retained references include mutual learning, frontline staff buy-in, accountability, resource allocation, effective leadership and improved implementation feasibility. Considerations regarding their involvement included time constraints, variable supervisory expertise, issues concerning centralised leadership, relationship strengthening among stakeholders, and strategic alignment of frontline staff and managerial priorities CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides important insights into the various roles played by decision-makers, the benefits and challenges associated with their involvement, and identifies opportunities for strengthening their engagement. The results of this review highlight the need for practical collaboration and communication strategies that foster partnership between frontline staff and decision-makers at all levels.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,090 | 0,241 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,027 | 0,032 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».