How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?

Abstract

ObjectiveContinuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are foundational approaches to improving healthcare delivery. Publications using the term CQI, however, are methodologically heterogeneous, and labels other than CQI are used to signify relevant approaches. Standards for identifying the use of CQI based on its key methodological features could enable more effective learning across quality improvement (QI) efforts. The objective was to identify essential methodological features for recognizing CQI.DesignPrevious work with a 12-member international expert panel identified reliably abstracted CQI methodological features. We tested which features met rigorous a priori standards as essential features of CQI using a three-phase online modified-Delphi process.SettingPrimarily United States and Canada.Participants119 QI experts randomly assigned into four on-line panels.Intervention(s)Participants rated CQI features and discussed their answers using online, anonymous and asynchronous discussion boards. We analyzed ratings quantitatively and discussion threads qualitatively.Main outcome measure(s)Panel consensus on definitional CQI features.ResultsSeventy-nine (66%) panelists completed the process. Thirty-three completers self-identified as QI researchers, 18 as QI practitioners and 28 as both equally. The features ‘systematic data guided activities,’ ‘designing with local conditions in mind’ and ‘iterative development and testing’ met a priori standards as essential CQI features. Qualitative analyses showed cross-cutting themes focused on differences between QI and CQI.ConclusionsWe found consensus among a broad group of CQI researchers and practitioners on three features as essential for identifying QI work more specifically as ‘CQI.’ All three features are needed as a minimum standard for recognizing CQI methods.

Development of Cardiovascular Quality Indicators for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from an International Expert Panel Using a Novel Online Process

“…These experts were not part of the online modifiedDelphi panel in Phase 3. The candidate indicators were then presented to an online international panel using an innovative, iterative, online, previously evaluated platform called ExpertLens (23,24), which has been previously used to elicit expert opinion on a range of healthcare topics, including the identification of definitional features of Continuous Quality Improvement (25) and of aspirational research goals for preventing suicide (26). Nonetheless, this is the first time the platform has been used for QI development.…”

Continuous Quality Improvement Processes in Child Protection: A Systematic Literature Review

“…The nominal descriptions of research process and method in the studies reviewed suggest that the evidence supporting the application of CQI in child protection settings lacks rigor. Rubenstein et al (2014) similarly conclude that despite being widely referenced, discussions and reports of CQI are often devoid of "substantiating details"…”

On using ethical principles of community-engaged research in translational science

“…39 ExpertLens has been used in more than a dozen studies to engage large and diverse stakeholder groups, including researchers, providers, administrators, policy-makers, and community members, such as patients and their family members. Study topics ranged from the development of national suicide prevention research goals, 40,41 to the identification of definitional features of continuous quality improvement in health care, 39,42 to the development of quality and performance indicators/measures for arthritis patients. 43–45 …”

“…Coding results were reviewed by two other qualitative researchers to ensure consistency; disagreements were discussed until consensus was achieved. 42 …”