Qualitative process evaluation of the Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP): study protocol

被引:9
|
作者
Wagstaff, Duncan [1 ,2 ]
Moonesinghe, S. Ramani [1 ,2 ]
Fulop, Naomi J. [3 ]
Vindrola-Padros, Cecilia [3 ]
机构
[1] Royal Coll Anaesthetists, Hlth Serv Res Ctr, London, England
[2] UCL, Res Dept Targeted Intervent, Ctr Perioperat Med, London, England
[3] UCL, Dept Appl Hlth Res, London, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2019年 / 9卷 / 07期
关键词
SURGICAL OUTCOMES; FEEDBACK; AUDIT; CARE; INTERVENTIONS; POLICY;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030214
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP) is designed to measure complications after major elective surgery and improve these through feedback of data to clinicians. Previous research suggests that despite the significant resources which go into collecting data for national clinical audits, the information they contain is not always used effectively to improve local services. Methods and analysis We will conduct a formative process evaluation of PQIP comprising a multisited qualitative study to analyse PQIPs programme theory, barriers, facilitators and wider contextual factors that influence implementation. The research will be carried out with the PQIP project team and six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected according to geographical location, type of hospital, size and level of engagement with PQIP. We will include one Trust which has not expressed interest in the PQIP for comparison and to explore the role of secular trend in any changes in practice. We will use semi-structured interviews (up to 144 in Trusts and 12 with the project team), non-participant observations (up to 150 hours) and documentary analysis. We will track the lifecycle of perioperative data, exploring the transformations it undergoes from creation to use. We will use framework analysis with categories both from our research questions and from themes emerging from the data. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted from the University College London Research Ethics Committee (ref 10375/001). Permissions to conduct research at NHS Trusts have been granted by local Research and Development offices in coordination with the Health Research Authority. We will follow guidelines for data security, confidentiality and information governance. Findings will be shared at regular time points with the PQIP project team to inform the implementation of the programme, and with participating NHS Trusts to help them reflect on how they currently use data for improvement of perioperative services.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Investigating the organisational impacts of quality improvement: a protocol for a realist evaluation of improvement approaches drawing on the Resource Based View of the Firm
    Burton, Christopher R.
    Malone, Jo Rycroft
    Robert, Glenn
    Willson, Alan
    Hopkins, Angela
    BMJ OPEN, 2014, 4 (07):
  • [32] Nurses' Motivations, Barriers, and Facilitators to Engage in a Peer Review Process: A Qualitative Study Protocol
    Fernandes, Julio Belo
    Domingos, Josefa
    Dean, John
    Fernandes, Sonia
    Ferreira, Rogerio
    Baixinho, Cristina Lavareda
    Castro, Cidalia
    Simoes, Aida
    Bernardes, Catarina
    Almeida, Ana Silva
    Loureiro, Sonia
    Ferreira, Noelia
    Santos, Isabel
    Godinho, Catarina
    NURSING REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01) : 307 - 314
  • [33] Implementation of the Diabetes Community Exercise and Education Programme (DCEP) for the management of type 2 diabetes: qualitative process evaluation
    Stokes, Tim
    Wilkinson, Amanda
    Jayakaran, Prasath
    Higgs, Christopher
    Keen, Donna
    Mani, Ramakrishnan
    Sullivan, Trudy
    Gray, Andrew R.
    Doolan-Noble, Fiona
    Mann, Jim
    Hale, Leigh
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (05):
  • [34] Improvement of the nutritional status and quality of life of cancer patients through a protocol of evaluation and nutritional intervention
    Lluch Taltavull, Josep
    Mercadal Orfila, Gabriel
    Afonzo Gobbi, Yashmin Silvana
    NUTRICION HOSPITALARIA, 2018, 35 (03) : 606 - 611
  • [35] A Qualitative Study of Multidisciplinary Providers' Experiences With the Transfer Process for Injured Children and Ideas for Improvement
    Gawel, Marcie
    Emerson, Beth
    Giuliano, John S.
    Rosenberg, Alana
    Minges, Karl E.
    Feder, Shelli
    Violano, Pina
    Morrell, Patricia
    Petersen, Judy
    Christison-Lagay, Emily
    Auerbach, Marc
    PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE, 2018, 34 (02) : 125 - 131
  • [36] Study protocol for a prospective process evaluation of a culturally secure rehabilitation programme for Aboriginal Australians after brain injury: the Healing Right Way project
    Skoss, Rachel
    White, Jane
    Stanley, Mandy J.
    Robinson, Melanie
    Thompson, Sandra
    Armstrong, Elizabeth
    Katzenellenbogen, Judith M.
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (09):
  • [37] Organizational conditions for engagement in quality and safety improvement: a longitudinal qualitative study of community pharmacies
    Phipps, Denham L.
    Jones, Christian E. L.
    Parker, Dianne
    Ashcroft, Darren M.
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2018, 18
  • [38] Provider experiences of the implementation of a new tuberculosis treatment programme: A qualitative study using the normalisation process model
    Atkins, Salla
    Lewin, Simon
    Ringsberg, Karin C.
    Thorson, Anna
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2011, 11
  • [39] Improving the timeliness and equity of preschool childhood vaccinations: Mixed methods evaluation of a quality improvement programme in primary care
    Marszalek, Milena
    Hawking, Meredith K. D.
    Gutierrez, Ana
    Firman, Nicola
    Wu, Jianhua
    Robson, John
    Smith, Kelvin
    Dostal, Isabel
    Ahmed, Zaheer
    Bedford, Helen
    Billington, Anna
    Dezateux, Carol
    VACCINE, 2025, 43
  • [40] Competition in collaborative clothing: a qualitative case study of influences on collaborative quality improvement in the ICU
    Dainty, Katie N.
    Scales, Damon C.
    Sinuff, Tasnim
    Zwarenstein, Merrick
    BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2013, 22 (04) : 317 - 323