Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

Authors: Marlena H. Shin, Peter E. Rivard, Michael Shwartz, Ann Borzecki, Enzo Yaksic, Kelly Stolzmann, Lisa Zubkoff, Amy K. Rosen

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Given that patient safety measures are increasingly used for public reporting and pay-for performance, it is important for stakeholders to understand how to use these measures for improvement. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) are one particularly visible set of measures that are now used primarily for public reporting and pay-for-performance among both private sector and Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals. This trend generates a strong need for stakeholders to understand how to interpret and use the PSIs for quality improvement (QI). The goal of this study was to develop an educational program and tailor it to stakeholders’ needs. In this paper, we share what we learned from this program development process.

Methods

Our study population included key VA stakeholders involved in reviewing performance reports and prioritizing and initiating quality/safety initiatives. A pre-program formative evaluation through telephone interviews and web-based surveys assessed stakeholders’ educational needs/interests. Findings from the formative evaluation led to development and implementation of a cyberseminar-based program, which we tailored to stakeholders’ needs/interests. A post-program survey evaluated program participants’ perceptions about the PSI educational program.

Results

Interview data confirmed that the concepts we had developed for the interviews could be used for the survey. Survey results informed us on what program delivery mode and content topics were of high interest. Six cyberseminars were developed—three of which focused on two content areas that were noted of greatest interest: learning how to use PSIs for monitoring trends and understanding how to interpret PSIs. We also used snapshots of VA PSI reports so that participants could directly apply learnings. Although initial interest in the program was high, actual attendance was low. However, post-program survey results indicated that perceptions about the program were positive.

Conclusions

Conducting a formative evaluation was a highly important process in program development. The useful information that we collected through the interviews and surveys allowed us to tailor the program to stakeholders’ needs and interests. Our experiences, particularly with the formative evaluation process, yielded valuable lessons that can guide others when developing and implementing similar educational programs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
Gandhi TK, Berwick DM, Shojania KG. Patient safety at the crossroads. JAMA. 2016;315(17):1829–30.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Hussey PS, Burns RM, Weinick RM, Mayer L, Cerese J, Farley DO. Using a hospital quality improvement toolkit to improve performance on the AHRQ quality indicators. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(4):177–84.CrossRefPubMed
6.
de Vos ML, van der Veer SN, Graafmans WC, de Keizer NF, Jager KJ, Westert GP, et al. Implementing quality indicators in intensive care units: exploring barriers to and facilitators of behaviour change. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):1.CrossRef
7.
Lindenauer PK, Lagu T, Ross JS, Pekow PS, Shatz A, Hannon N, et al. Attitudes of hospital leaders toward publicly reported measures of health care quality. JAMA. 2014;174(12):1904–11.
8.
Hafner JM, Williams SC, Koss RG, Tschurtz BA, Schmaltz SP, Loeb JM. The perceived impact of public reporting hospital performance data: interviews with hospital staff. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011;23(6):697–704.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Rothberg MB, Benjamin EM, Lindenauer PK. Public reporting of hospital quality: recommendations to benefit patients and hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(9):541–5.PubMed
10.
Elixhauser A, Pancholi M, Clancy CM. Using the AHRQ quality indicators to improve health care quality. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(9):533–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Rosen AK, Itani KM, Cevasco M, Kaafarani HM, Hanchate A, Shin M, et al. Validating the patient safety indicators in the veterans health administration: do they accurately identify true safety events? Med Care. 2012;50(1):74–85.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
15.
Zubkoff L, Neily J, Mills PD, Borzecki A, Shin M, Lynn M, et al. Using a virtual breakthrough series collaborative to reduce postoperative respiratory failure in 16 veterans health administration hospitals. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40(1):11–20.CrossRef
16.
17.
Ruzek JI, Rosen RC, Marceau L, Larson MJ, Garvert DW, Smith L, et al. Online self-administered training for post-traumatic stress disorder treatment providers: design and methods for a randomized, prospective intervention study. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):1.CrossRef
18.
Chipps J, Brysiewicz P, Mars M. A systematic review of the effectiveness of videoconference-based Tele-education for medical and nursing education. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2012;9(2):78–87.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Gilkey MB, Moss JL, Roberts AJ, Dayton AM, Grimshaw AH, Brewer NT. Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program: a process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):1.CrossRef
20.
21.
Chen Q, Shin MH, Chan JA, Sullivan JL, Borzecki AM, Shwartz M, et al. Partnering with VA stakeholders to develop a comprehensive patient safety data display: lessons learned from the field. Am J Med Qual. 2016;31(2):178–86.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Cottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, Uhl S, Belinson S, Chang C, et al. AHRQ methods for effective health care. Defining the benefits of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014.
24.
Rosen A (Principal Investigator). VA HSR&D QUERI Service Directed Research #07–002, “Validating the Patient Safety Indicators in the VA: a multifaceted approach.”
25.
Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallace CM, Bowman C, Guihan M, Hagedorn H, et al. The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(Suppl 2):s1–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Joshi MS, Hines SC. Getting the board on board: engaging hospital boards in quality and patient safety. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32(4):179–87.CrossRefPubMed
27.
de Vos M, Graafmans W, Kooistra M, Meijboom B, Van Der Voort P, Westert G. Using quality indicators to improve hospital care: a review of the literature. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21(2):119–29.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts? Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(2):84–94.CrossRef
29.
Hamilton A. Qualitative methods in rapid turn-around health services research. In: VA HSR&D National Cyberseminar Series: spotlight on Women’s health; 2013.
30.
Miles M, Huberman M. An expanded sourcebook of qualitative data analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
31.
Lukas CV, Holmes SK, Cohen AB, Restuccia J, Cramer IE, Shwartz M, et al. Transformational change in health care systems: an organizational model. Health Care Manag Rev. 2007;32(4):309–20.CrossRef
32.
33.
34.
Guise J-M, O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Most C, LaBrant L, Lee K, et al. A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: a synthesis of current practices. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(6):666–74.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Internet-based PR. Medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10(1):1.CrossRef
36.
O'Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E, LaBrant L, Most C, Lee K, et al. AHRQ methods for effective health care. Engaging stakeholders to identify and prioritize future research needs. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011.
Metadata
Title
Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA
Authors
Marlena H. Shin
Peter E. Rivard
Michael Shwartz
Ann Borzecki
Enzo Yaksic
Kelly Stolzmann
Lisa Zubkoff
Amy K. Rosen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2904-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Quality of care for children with acute malnutrition at health center level in Uganda: a cross sectional study in West Nile region during the refugee crisis

Research article

Relative contribution of various chronic diseases and multi-morbidity to potential disability among Dutch elderly

Research article

Challenges and opportunities of integration of community based Management of Acute Malnutrition into the government health system in Bangladesh: a qualitative study

Research article

Barriers to accessing adequate maternal care in Georgia: a qualitative study

Research article

The benefits of co-location in primary care practices: the perspectives of general practitioners and patients in 34 countries

Research article

Anticipating the potential for positive uptake and adaptation in the implementation of a publicly funded online STBBI testing service: a qualitative analysis