Cited by 71Healthcare Quality and ManagementHealth Policy Implementation ScienceAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change

A framework and a measurement instrument for sustainability of work practices in long-term care

Open access
Slaghuis, Sarah S, Strating, Mathilde MH, Bal, Roland A, Nieboer, Anna P·2011·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In health care, many organizations are working on quality improvement and/or innovation of their care practices. Although the effectiveness of improvement processes has been studied extensively, little attention has been given to sustainability of the changed work practices after implementation. The objective of this study is to develop a theoretical framework and measurement instrument for sustainability. To this end sustainability is conceptualized with two dimensions: routinization and institutionalization. METHODS: The exploratory methodological design consisted of three phases: a) framework development; b) instrument development; and c) field testing in former improvement teams in a quality improvement program for health care (N teams = 63, N individual = 112). Data were collected not until at least one year had passed after implementation.Underlying constructs and their interrelations were explored using Structural Equation Modeling and Principal Component Analyses. Internal consistency was computed with Cronbach's alpha coefficient. A long and a short version of the instrument are proposed. RESULTS: The χ2- difference test of the -2 Log Likelihood estimates demonstrated that the hierarchical two factor model with routinization and institutionalization as separate constructs showed a better fit than the one factor model (p < .01). Secondly, construct validity of the instrument was strong as indicated by the high factor loadings of the items. Finally, the internal consistency of the subscales was good. CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical framework offers a valuable starting point for the analysis of sustainability on the level of actual changed work practices. Even though the two dimensions routinization and institutionalization are related, they are clearly distinguishable and each has distinct value in the discussion of sustainability. Finally, the subscales conformed to psychometric properties defined in literature. The instrument can be used in the evaluation of improvement projects.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-11-314

Cites

38 of 38 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. Strating MMH Nieboer AP Zuiderent-Jerak T Bal RA Creating effective quality-improvement collaboratives: a multiple case study BMJ Quality & Safety in Health Care 2011 21270070 PMC3066797
  2. Øvretveit J "Review of Research on Sustaining and Spreading Quality and Safety Improvement" 2008 Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. ZonMw, the Hague

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slaghuis, S. S., Strating, M. M., Bal, R. A., & Nieboer, A. P.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Slaghuis, Sarah S
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2011-11-16
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
314-314
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057818000
Cited by
71
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
Keywords
long-term care, quality improvement, routinization, institutionalization, scale development, theoretical framework, implementation evaluation, psychometric validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Services Research, Humans, Long-Term Care, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Psychometrics, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Quality Improvement

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