Cited by 62Healthcare Quality and ManagementHealth Policy Implementation SciencePatient Safety and Medication Errors

Strategies for sustaining a quality improvement collaborative and its patient safety gains

Parand, A., Benn, J., Burnett, S., Pinto, A., Vincent, C.·2012·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify strategies to facilitate the sustainability of a quality and safety improvement collaborative: the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI) and its successes. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study with a repeated sample at two time points. SETTING: Twenty organizations participating in the SPI programme in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty principal SPI programme coordinators took part in interviews towards the end of the supported phase of the programme, 12 of which were interviewed again a year later, along with another three replacement programme coordinators, totalling 35 interviewees across the two time points. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Programme coordinators' perceptions of facilitating strategies to the sustainability of the collaborative and its gains. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified three overarching factors for the sustainability of SPI: (i) using programme improvement methodology and measurement of its outcomes; (ii) organizational strategies to ensure sustainability and (iii) alignment of goals with external requirements. Within these were eight themes identified by the coordinators as helping to sustain the efforts of the SPI programme and its successes. CONCLUSIONS: This study has presented what principle programme coordinators across 20 NHS organizations considered to be the key strategies to sustain their own improvement programme and its successes, during the supported phase of the programme and 1 year on. Recommendations are to consider these practical strategies in order to improve chances of maintaining changes and continuing a quality improvement programme beyond the formal cessation of the intervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/intqhc/mzs030

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Benn J, Burnett S, Parand A et al. Studying large-scale pro- grammes to improve patient safety across multiple organisa- tions: challenges for research. Soc Sci Med 2009;69:1767 -76.
  2. IHI. The breakthrough series: IHI's collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. Diabetes Spectrum 2003;17: 97-101.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parand, A., Benn, J., Burnett, S., Pinto, A., & Vincent, C.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Parand, A.
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Published
2012-06-04
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
380-390
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
OpenAlex
W2116149757
Cited by
61
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3
FWCI
7.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
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
quality improvement collaborative, patient safety, program coordinators, organizational strategy, outcome measurement
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Quality Assurance, Health Care, State Medicine, Program Evaluation, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Qualitative Research, Quality Improvement, Patient Safety

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