‘We listened and supported and depended on each other’: a qualitative study of how leadership influences implementation of QI interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition in the literature of the 'Herculean' efforts required to bring about change in healthcare processes and systems. Leadership is recognised as a critical lever for implementation of quality improvement (QI) and other complex team-level interventions; however, the processes by which leaders facilitate change are not well understood. The aim of this study is to examine 'how' leadership influences implementation of QI interventions. METHODS: We drew on the leadership literature and used secondary data collected as part of a process evaluation of the Safer Care for Older Persons in residential Environments (SCOPE) QI intervention to gain insights regarding the processes by which leadership influences QI implementation. Specifically, using detailed process evaluation data from 31 unit-based nursing home teams we conducted a thematic analysis with a codebook developed a priori based on the existing literature to identify leadership processes. RESULTS: Effective leaders (ie, those who care teams felt supported by and who facilitated SCOPE implementation) successfully developed and reaffirmed teams' commitment to the SCOPE QI intervention (theme 1), facilitated learning capacity by fostering follower participation in SCOPE and empowering care aides to step into team leadership roles (theme 2) and actively supported team-oriented processes where they developed and nurtured relationships with their followers and supported them as they navigated relationships with other staff (theme 3). Together, these were the mechanisms by which care aides were brought on board with the intervention, stayed on board and, ultimately, transplanted the intervention into the facility. Building learning capacity and creating a culture of improvement are thought to be the overarching processes by which leadership facilitates implementation of complex interventions like SCOPE. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight important, often overlooked, relational and sociocultural aspects of successful QI leadership in nursing homes that can guide the design, implementation and scaling of complex interventions and can guide future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".