Menu
  • CPD online - National Elf Service
  • ElfHelp
  • Social Media
  • Video
  • Podcast
  • Webinar
  • Training
  • Contact
  • News

No bias. No misinformation. No spin. Just what you need!

The Commissioning Elf

  • Home
  • About
  • Categories
    • Commissioning
      • Cost effectiveness
      • Evaluation and impact assessment
      • Financial management
      • Financial sustainability
      • Integration
      • Needs assessment
      • Outcomes based commissioning
      • Partnership working
      • Population health
      • Resource allocation
      • Service reconfiguration
      • Service review and improvement
      • Specialised commissioning
      • Strategy development and planning
      • Technology
      • Urgent care
      • Variation
      • caries
      • cleft lip and palate
      • dental workforce
      • endodontics
      • oral and maxillofacial surgery
      • oral cancer
      • oral health
      • oral medicine and pathology
      • orthodontics
      • periodontal disease
      • restorative dentistry
      • temporomandibular joint disorders
      • tooth surface loss
    • Diagnosis
      • brain imaging
      • diagnostic test
      • prediction
      • risk factors
      • screening programme
      • screening test
      • behaviour
      • ICT
      • learning styles
      • numeracy
      • phonics
      • reading
      • science
      • social emotional
      • social skills
      • wellbeing
      • autistic spectrum disorder
      • challenging behaviour
      • communication
      • down syndrome
      • parents with learning disabilities
      • prader-willi syndrome
      • profound and multiple learning disability
      • addiction
      • ADHD
      • anxiety
      • bipolar disorder
      • body-focused repetitive behaviours
      • dementia
      • depression
      • eating disorders
      • OCD
      • panic disorder
      • personality disorders
      • psychosis
      • PTSD
      • schizophrenia
      • self-harm
      • sleep disorders
      • suicide
      • trauma
      • autoimmune and inflammatory diseases
      • fibromyalgia
      • fractures and dislocations
      • musculoskeletal pain
      • neck and back pain
      • osteoarthritis
      • osteoporosis
      • rheumatoid arthritis
      • soft tissue injuries
      • spinal conditions
      • spondyloarthropathies
    • Other health conditions
      • blood-borne viruses
      • cancer
      • cardiovascular disease
      • chronic fatigue syndrome
      • comorbidity
      • epilepsy
      • motor neuron disease
      • multiple sclerosis
      • parkinson's disease
      • sleep apnoea
      • Tourette Syndrome
      • traumatic brain injury
    • Populations and settings
      • advocacy
      • black and minority ethnic
      • caregivers
      • child and adolescent
      • climate
      • commissioning
      • community settings
      • crime
      • deinstitutionalisation
      • employment
      • end of life
      • family carers
      • hospital admissions
      • housing
      • later life
      • LGBTQ+
      • liaison psychiatry
      • loneliness
      • older adult
      • parenting
      • patient safety
      • perinatal mental health
      • poverty
      • pregnancy
      • primary care
      • quality of life
      • refugee
      • schools
      • secondary care
      • service user involvement
      • shared care
      • sport
      • training
      • vulnerable people
      • young adult
    • Publication types
      • appraisal
      • audit
      • case study
      • case-control
      • cohort study
      • consultation
      • cross-sectional
      • economic analysis
      • economic evaluation
      • guideline
      • legislation
      • literature review
      • mendelian randomisation
      • meta-analysis
      • mixed methods
      • observational study
      • patient information
      • policy
      • prospective study
      • qualitative
      • questionnaire
      • randomised controlled trial
      • report
      • scoping review
      • state of the art review
      • statistics
      • survey
      • systematic review
      • technology assessment
      • training resource
      • umbrella review
      • website
      • coproduction
      • equality and diversity
      • evidence based social care
      • home care
      • integration
      • local authorities
      • nursing homes
      • personal budgets and direct payments
      • personalisation
      • reablement
      • residential care
      • safeguarding
      • social care decision making
      • social care training
      • social care workforce
      • social work
      • support planning
      • user led organisations
      • voluntary and community sector
    • Treatment
      • antidepressants
      • antipsychotics
      • CBT
      • cognitive bias modification (cbm)
      • complementary and alternative
      • digital health
      • exercise
      • medicines
      • mental illness prevention
      • mindfulness
      • neurostimulation
      • other
      • psychotherapy
      • rehabilitation
      • self-management
      • surgical
      • systems
      • telehealth
      • topical
  • Podcasts
Search

Are clinicians engaged in quality improvement? Simplistic approaches to change end in disappointment

No Responses »
May 1 2011
Profile photo of Sue Lacey-Bryant
Posted by
Sue Lacey-Bryant
Wooden bricks spelling quality and toppling over

A Health Foundation review reports that active involvement of clinicians with quality improvement remains largely unrealised. With the challenge of having to do more with fewer resources, engagement becomes ever more critical yet the NHS “often relies on overly simplistic rational-linear approaches to change that:

 end in disappointment which could be predicted by the ‘person on the street [Ovretveit]

Definition of quality

The Health Foundation defines quality as ‘the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge’.

The evidence base

The authors examined published and grey literature on primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare in the UK, 1990-2009. Most studies rely on self-reported attitudes, with the risk of social desirability bias.  The review encompasses 100 or so empirical studies to broader literatures eg. evidence-based practice and change management, each with substantial bodies of research

The findings

The review highlighted 10 questions :

1. Do different healthcare professional groups define quality in the same way?

No. Different professional groups often define quality in different ways. Within a profession, thinking on what constitutes good or quality practice may be contested.

2. Do healthcare professionals think that the quality of care needs to be improved?

Yes (and No). There is agreement that it needs to be improved and clinical staff are  well able to identify important deficits in care yet many believe that quality is provided bacause it is a central tenet of professional codes of practice

3. What are healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards initiatives aimed at quality improvement?

They are reluctant to engage. Partly they believe initiatives are driven to reduce costs or that these will be ineffective. They may be concerned about harmful effects on staff and patients.

4. Do healthcare professionals have a clear understanding of the concepts and methods of quality improvement?

No. The authors describe healthcare as “replete with concepts, methods and programmes … which healthcare professionals struggle to understand.”

5. Where do healthcare professionals think that responsibility for quality improvement should lie?

Doctors see that defining and assessing healthcare quality is a medical responsibility. “Managers may struggle … against entrenched attitudes, and they may have to devise strategies to circumvent considerable opposition. There is an increasing recognition … of organisational or systems approaches….” Patients have a role

6. What do healthcare professionals think about clinical guidelines and ‘evidence-based practice’ (EBP) as routes to quality?

There may now be an acceptance of these as concepts, if not in daily practice. Many  view EBP as just one tool; many perceive guidelines as hampering clinical freedom

7. What are healthcare professionals’ attitudes to the measurement of healthcare quality for quality improvement purposes?

Clinicians have strong concerns that indicators are flawed; data are inaccurate, difficult to interpret and may be used to cut costs and impose constraints. Also, that patient surveys may focus on aspects that clinicians do not regard as important.

8. What are healthcare professionals’ attitudes to measures of quality being made public and used for external judgement and accountability?

They are concerned that certain data provide a skewed picture and wary about effects on clinicians, on public understanding and confidence, and on healthcare organisations.

9. What do healthcare professionals see as the barriers and enablers to quality improvement?

Lack of time and resources, competing priorities, and policy overload are barriers. Since the problems of working effectively between and across health professions are well documented the authors conclude that while more time and more resources may be needed or helpful, these are “unlikely to be sufficient in overcoming the substantial barriers to clinicians’ active engagement in successful quality improvement”.

10. What trends are discernible from the literature that may or may not relate to clinicians’ views of engagement with quality improvement?

Four trends were identified relating to involvement that stops short of full engagement, the separation of quality and safety, increased patient involvement, ger focus on systems approaches

Conclusions

Lack of engagement in quality improvement is a long-standing, multi factorial and international problem. Achieving substantial and sustained clinician engagement is likely to remain difficult.

References

Wilkinson, J.E. et al. Are clinicians engaged in quality improvement? A review of the literature on healthcare professionals’ views on quality improvement initiatives [PDF], Health Foundation, May 2011

Ovretveit J. The contribution of new social science research to patient safety. Soc Sci Med. 2009 Dec;69(12):1780-3. Epub 2009 Oct 21. [Pubmed Abstract]
Share on Facebook Tweet this on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+
Mark as read

Share this post:

Share on Facebook Tweet this on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Share via email
Create a personal elf note about this blog
Tagged with: clinical engagement, Health Foundation, quality improvement
Profile photo of Sue Lacey-Bryant

Sue Lacey-Bryant

More posts

Follow me here –

Logging In...

Profile cancel

Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Facebook
or

Not published

FOLLOW the Commissioning Elf

  • Find us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Google+
  • Read our RSS feed
  • Find us on LinkedIn

Are You A Researcher?

Elf Help from the Mental Elf

We can help you share your findings too — find out how.

Recent Posts

  • How can social action support service transformation?
  • Avoidable admissions: time to ask the patients?
  • What does patient and public involvement feel like?
  • Navigating the obstacles to health and care integration
  • Can Twitter data analysis help improve service quality in hospital settings? #EvidenceLive

Free newsletter

Your monthly dose of mental health research, evidence, and impact.

    We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.
    Built with Kit

    Suggest a paper

    Do you have a suggestion for a paper? Then let us know.

    Click here

    Watch our 2 minute promo video!

    Visit our other Elf blogs

    • Commissioning
    • Dentistry
    • Education
    • Learning Disabilities
    • Mental Health
    • Musculoskeletal
    • Social Care

    Free trial

    Close
    Ready to get started? It's free!
    Sign up now No thanks Tell me more about the benefits of membership

    Free email newsletter

    FOLLOW the Commissioning Elf

    • Find us on Facebook
    • Follow us on Twitter
    • Follow us on Google+
    • Read our RSS feed
    • Find us on LinkedIn
    © 2026 National Elf Service is brought to you by Minervation Ltd
    Email: [email protected]
    • About
    • Evaluation
    • Site Map
    • Terms
    • Privacy
    • Cookies
    • Log In