Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature

By M. Dixon-Woods, S. McNicol, G. Martin. BMJ Quality & Safety, 2012

611 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Background Formal evaluations of programmes are an important source of learning about the challenges faced in improving quality in healthcare and how they can be addressed. The authors aimed to integrate lessons from evaluations of the Health Foundation's improvement programmes with relevant literature. Methods The authors analysed evaluation reports relating to five Health Foundation improvement programmes using a form of ‘best fit’ synthesis, where a pre-existing framework was used for initial coding and then updated in response to the emerging analysis. A rapid narrative review of relevant literature was also undertaken. Results The authors identified ten key challenges: convincing people that there is a problem that is relevant to them; convincing them that the solution chosen is the right one; getting data collection and monitoring systems right; excess ambitions and ‘projectness’; organisational cultures, capacities and contexts; tribalism and lack of staff engagement; leadership; incentivising participation and ‘hard edges’; securing sustainability; and risk of unintended consequences. The authors identified a range of tactics that may be used to respond to these challenges. Discussion Securing improvement may be hard and slow and faces many challenges. Formal evaluations assist in recognising the nature of these challenges and help in addressing them.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Health Information Management, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/72c54f99317b541c3d1a99a91a3db11c911c4610

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

Citations in the corpus

A scoping review of rapid review methods (2015, background): “Of these, only 16 occurred more than once; three approaches occurred five times [21, 36, 40, 44, 45, 47, 53, 54, 56, 57, 65, 75, 83, 91, 92], another two occurred four times [18, 37, 39, 64, 86, 93, 99, 107], three approaches were used three times [49, 51, 58, 61, 62, 69, 73, 76, 81], and eight appr”