Cited by 37Healthcare Quality and ManagementPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealth Services Management and Policy

The role of chief executive officers in a quality improvement initiative: a qualitative study

Open access
Parand, Anam, Dopson, Sue, Vincent, Charles·2013·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: To identify the critical dimensions of hospital Chief Executive Officers’ (CEOs) involvement in a quality and safety initiative and to offer practical guidance to assist CEOs to fulfil their leadership role in quality improvement (QI). Design: Qualitative interview study. Setting: 20 organisations participating in the main phase of the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI) programme across the UK. Participants: 17 CEOs overseeing 19 organisations participating in the main phase of the SPI programme and 36 staff (20 workstream leads, 10 coordinators and 6 managers) involved in SPI across all 20 participating organisations. Main outcome measure: Self-reported perceptions of CEOs on their contribution and involvement within the SPI programme, supplemented by staff peer-reports. Results: The CEOs recognised the importance of their part in the SPI programme and gave detailed accounts of the perceived value that their involvement had brought at all stages of the process. In exploring the parts played by the CEOs, five dimensions were identified: (1) resource provision; (2) staff motivation and engagement; (3) commitment and support; (4) monitoring progress and (5) embedding programme elements. Staff reports confirmed these dimensions; however, the weighting of the dimensions differed. The findings stress the importance of particular actions of support and monitoring such as constant communication through leadership walk rounds and reviewing programme progress and its related clinical outcomes at Board meetings. Conclusions: This study addressed the call for more research-informed practical guidance on the role of senior management in QI initiatives. The findings show that the CEOs provided key participation considered to significantly contribute towards the SPI programme. CEOs and staff identified a number of clear and consistent themes essential to organisation safety improvement. Queries raised include the tangible benefits of executive involvement in changing structures and embedding for sustainability and the practical steps to creating the ‘right’ environment for QI.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001731

Cites

35 of 35 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: 3

  1. [7]Øvretveit J Does improving care coordination save money: a review of research. London: Report prepared for the Health Foundation, 2011
  2. [13]Øvretveit J Leading improvement effectively: Review of research: Health Foundation Report 2009 http://www.health.org.uk/public/cms/75/76/313/560/Leading%20imrpovement%20effectively.pdf?realName=YUaqJk.pdf (accessed 21 December 2012).
  3. [33]Wilkinson JE Powell A Davies H Are clinicians engaged in quality improvement? A review of the literature on healthcare professionals’ views on quality improvement initiative: Health Foundation Report 2011 http://www.health.org.uk/public/cms/75/76/313/2440/Are%20clinicians%20engaged%20in%20quality%20improvement.pdf?realName=y8NfS4.pdf (accessed 21 December 2012)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parand, A., Dopson, S., & Vincent, C.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Parand, Anam
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
e001731
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1859287479
Cited by
37
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
Keywords
chief executive officers, hospital leadership, quality improvement, patient safety, senior management involvement, employee engagement, board oversight, resource provisioning

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