About the Author

Phillips, Jack J.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7601-4.50018-3

Cited by 16 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used Phillips' ROI Model in Training and Performance Improvement Programs,68 a commonly referenced work in this discipline, to analyse the alignment with the two studies that evaluated ROI in QI initiatives. Table 3 compares the approaches used in these studies and identifies elements used to calculate ROI specifically in QI capacity building initiatives.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the Productive Ward Rapid Assessment included: quality outcomes, productivity and efficiency outcomes, and financial benefits. Financial benefits generated by increased direct patient care time were calculated through excess bed days, length of stay, hospital readmissions, rates of staff absence and stock reduction. Identifying intangible benefits that will not be included in the ROI estimation: Non-monetary or intangible benefits should always be estimated and reported, even if sometimes they cannot or should not be converted to monetary values and included in the ROI estimation by design 68. In the Productive Ward Rapid Assessment, patient experience, staff satisfaction and harm events, although identified, were not quantified and excluded from the ROI estimation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in order to isolate the effect of training, McLinden et al 24 asked a group of stakeholders to consider the multiple factors that could be responsible for the financial benefits and then to estimate the percentage attributable to training. Attribution of changes to the Productive Ward was also obtained from the judgement of managers involved in the implementation of the programme during the interviews. ROI calculations: ROI is calculated as the net benefit (benefits minus costs) divided by costs 68. For the Productivity Ward, the estimated total potential economic impact was calculated by scaling up the evidence from the 9 participating hospital trusts to all 139 wards in England.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Identifying intangible benefits that will not be included in the ROI estimation: Non-monetary or intangible benefits should always be estimated and reported, even if sometimes they cannot or should not be converted to monetary values and included in the ROI estimation by design 68. In the Productive Ward Rapid Assessment, patient experience, staff satisfaction and harm events, although identified, were not quantified and excluded from the ROI estimation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ROI calculations: ROI is calculated as the net benefit (benefits minus costs) divided by costs 68. For the Productivity Ward, the estimated total potential economic impact was calculated by scaling up the evidence from the 9 participating hospital trusts to all 139 wards in England.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeLeading health systems have invested in substantial quality improvement (QI) capacity building, but little is known about the aggregate effect of these investments at the health system level. We conducted a systematic review to identify key steps and elements that should be considered for system-level evaluations of investment in QI capacity building.MethodsWe searched for evaluations of QI capacity building and evaluations of QI training programmes. We included the most relevant indexed databases in the field and a strategic search of the grey literature. The latter included direct electronic scanning of 85 relevant government and institutional websites internationally. Data were extracted regarding evaluation design and common assessment themes and components.Results48 articles met the inclusion criteria. 46 articles described initiative-level non-economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, while 2 studies included economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, also at the initiative level. No system-level QI capacity building/training evaluations were found. We identified 17 evaluation components that fit within 5 overarching dimensions (characteristics of QI training; characteristics of QI activity; individual capacity; organisational capacity and impact) that should be considered in evaluations of QI capacity building. 8 key steps in return-on-investment (ROI) assessments in QI capacity building were identified: (1) planning—stakeholder perspective; (2) planning—temporal perspective; (3) identifying costs; (4) identifying benefits; (5) identifying intangible benefits that will not be included in the ROI estimation; (6) discerning attribution; (7) ROI calculations; (8) sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsThe literature on QI capacity building evaluation is limited in the number and scope of studies. Our findings, summarised in a Framework to Guide Evaluations of QI Capacity Building, can be used to start closing this knowledge gap.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

War unser Kongress wirkungsvoll? – ein möglicher Messansatz

Klotz

Kemter-Hofmann

2019

Eventforschung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost–benefit ratio of modern medical education using micro-costing: a model calculation using the example of an innovative breast brachytherapy workshop

Knippen,

Duma,

Schwedas

et al. 2024

Strahlenther Onkol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purpose Radiation oncology is an essential component of therapeutic oncology and necessitates well-trained personnel. Multicatheter brachytherapy (MCBT) is one radiotherapeutic option for early-stage breast cancer treatment. However, specialized hands-on training for MCBT is not currently included in the curriculum for residents. A recently developed hands-on brachytherapy workshop has demonstrated promising results in enhancing knowledge and practical skills. Nevertheless, these simulation-based teaching formats necessitate more time and financial resources. Our analyses include computational models for the implementation and delivery of this workshop and can serve as a basis for similar educational initiatives. Methods This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a previously developed and evaluated breast brachytherapy simulation workshop. Using a micro-costing approach, we estimated costs at a detailed level by considering supplies, soft- and hardware, and personnel time for each task. This method also allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the costs associated with implementing new medical techniques. The workshop costs were divided into two categories: development and workshop execution. The cost analysis was conducted on a per-participant basis, and the impact on knowledge improvement was measured using a questionnaire. Results The total workshop costs were determined by considering the initial workshop setup expenses including the development and conceptualization of the course with all involved collaborators, as well as the costs incurred for each individual course. The workshop was found to be financially efficient, with a per-participant cost of € 39, considering the industrial sponsorship provided for brachytherapy equipment. In addition, we assessed the workshop’s efficacy by analyzing participant feedback using Likert scale evaluations. The findings indicated a notable enhancement in both theoretical and practical skills among the participants. Moreover, the cost-to-benefit ratio (CBFR) analysis demonstrated a CBFR of € 13.53 for each Likert point increment. Conclusion The hands-on brachytherapy workshop proved to be a valuable and approximately cost-effective educational program, leading to a significant enhancement in the knowledge and skills of the participants. Without the support of industrial sponsorship, the costs would have been unattainable.

show abstract

About the Author

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

War unser Kongress wirkungsvoll? – ein möglicher Messansatz

Cost–benefit ratio of modern medical education using micro-costing: a model calculation using the example of an innovative breast brachytherapy workshop

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About