Monitoring QI Maturity of Public Health Organizations and Systems in Minnesota

Gearin, Kimberly; Gyllstrom, M. Elizabeth; Joly, Brenda M.; Frauendienst, Renee; Myhre, Julie; Riley, William J.

doi:10.13023/fphssr.0203.03

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the existing evidence base comes from the United States (US) [2]. Research in the US has largely focused on describing efforts to conduct public health QI interventions [4,5], exploring factors that act as facilitators and barriers to QI efforts and the development of QI culture in PHUs [6][7][8][9][10][11][12], and assessing the state of QI and the level of QI maturity in PHUs using the QI Maturity Tool [6,[9][10][11][13][14][15][16][17][18]. While the American literature provides a foundational understanding of QI in public health and helps to inform QI work, extrapolation of findings to Canadian PHUs is limited due to the unique public health landscape in Canada (e.g., funding and organizational structures).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the QI Maturity Tool – Modified Ontario Version to assess the state of QI maturity in Ontario’s public health units

Law

Berry²,

Clarke

et al. 2021

Arch Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Implementation of quality improvement (QI) practices varies considerably among public health units (PHUs) in Ontario. With the emphasis on continuous quality improvement (CQI) in the revised Ontario Public Health Standards (OPHS), there is a need to understand the level of QI maturity in Ontario’s PHUs. The objective of this research was to establish a baseline understanding of QI maturity in Ontario’s PHUs. Methods The QI Maturity Tool - Modified Ontario Version was used to assess the state of QI maturity in 34 PHUs across Ontario. QI maturity was assessed through 23 questions across three dimensions: QI Organizational Culture; QI Capacity and Competency; and QI Perceived Value. QI maturity scores were classified into five stages: Beginning; Emerging; Progressing; Achieving; and Excelling. QI maturity scores were calculated for each of the 34 participating PHUs to determine their stage of QI maturity. Each PHU’s score was then used to determine the provincial average for QI maturity. Participants were also asked to answer three questions related to core CQI organizational structures. Results Across the 34 PHUs, 3503 staff participated in the survey. A review of individual PHU scores indicates that Ontario’s PHUs are at varying stages of QI maturity. The average QI maturity score of 4.94 for the 34 participating PHUs places the provincial average in the “Emerging” stage of QI maturity. By QI dimensions, the participating PHUs scored in the “Emerging” stage for QI Organizational Culture (5.09), the “Beginning” stage for QI Competency and Capacity (4.58), and the “Achieving” stage for QI Perceived Value (6.00). Conclusion There is an urgent need for Ontario’s PHUs to progress to higher stages of QI maturity. Participants place a high value on QI, but collectively are at less “mature” stages of QI in relation to QI organizational culture and the competency and capacity to engage in QI activities. PHUs should leverage the value that staff place on QI to foster the development of a culture of QI and provide staff with relevant knowledge and skills to engage in QI activities.

show abstract