Cited by 36Healthcare Quality and ManagementHealth Policy Implementation SciencePatient Safety and Medication Errors

Sustainability of Partnership Projects: A Conceptual Framework and Checklist

Edwards, Janine C., Feldman, Penny Hollander, Sangl, Judy, Polakoff, David, Stern, Glen, Casey, Don·2007·The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety

Abstract

Background There is growing recognition that the health care delivery system in the United States must make major changes. Intervention projects focusing on quality and patient safety offer the potential for reshaping the future of medicine. Sustainability of the Partnerships for Quality (PFQ) projects and other patient safety and quality improvement projects that provide evidence of effectiveness is essential if progress is to be made.Methods For the purposes of these projects, a conceptual framework and a checklist for sustainability were developed. The framework consists of two dimensions: (1) the goals--what is to be sustained--and (2) elements for sustainability--infrastructure, incentives, incremental opportunities for involvement, and integration. The checklist is designed to trigger planning for sustainability early in a project's design. Specific questions about each of the elements can cue planners and project leaders to build in the goals for sustainability and change processes.Results A pilot test showed that the framework and checklist are relevant and helpful across a variety of projects.Discussion and conclusion Two extended examples of planning and action for sustainability from the PFQ projects are described. It is too early to claim sustainability for these project. However, continued monitoring for at least three years with the checklist could result in valuable national data with which to design and implement future projects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1553-7250(07)33122-x

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Edwards, J. C., Feldman, P. H., Sangl, J., Polakoff, D., Stern, G., & Casey, D.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
  • VNS Health (US)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
Corresponding author
Edwards, Janine C.
Venue
The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-12
Volume
33
Issue
12
Pages
37-47
ISSN
1553-7250 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2414614861
Cited by
36
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
partnership sustainability, patient safety, quality improvement, health care delivery reform, conceptual framework, sustainability checklist, organizational change, incentives, integration, infrastructure, project planning
MeSH terms
Community Participation, Cooperative Behavior, Delivery of Health Care, Health Services Research, Heart Failure, Humans, Interinstitutional Relations, Long-Term Care, Motivation, Organizational Innovation, Pilot Projects, Quality Assurance, Health Care, United States, Program Evaluation, United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Safety Management, Evidence-Based Medicine, Organizational Case Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review