Objective

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are foundational approaches to improving healthcare delivery. Publications using the term CQI, however, are methodologically heterogeneous, and labels other than CQI are used to signify relevant approaches. Standards for identifying the use of CQI based on its key methodological features could enable more effective learning across quality improvement (QI) efforts. The objective was to identify essential methodological features for recognizing CQI.

Design

Previous work with a 12-member international expert panel identified reliably abstracted CQI methodological features. We tested which features met rigorous a priori standards as essential features of CQI using a three-phase online modified-Delphi process.

Setting

Primarily United States and Canada.

Participants

119 QI experts randomly assigned into four on-line panels.

Intervention

Participants rated CQI features and discussed their answers using online, anonymous and asynchronous discussion boards. We analyzed ratings quantitatively and discussion threads qualitatively. Main outcome measure(s) Panel consensus on definitional CQI features.

Results

/st> Seventy-nine (66%) panelists completed the process. Thirty-three completers self-identified as QI researchers, 18 as QI practitioners and 28 as both equally. The features 'systematic data guided activities,' 'designing with local conditions in mind' and 'iterative development and testing' met a priori standards as essential CQI features. Qualitative analyses showed cross-cutting themes focused on differences between QI and CQI.

Conclusions

We found consensus among a broad group of CQI researchers and practitioners on three features as essential for identifying QI work more specifically as 'CQI.' All three features are needed as a minimum standard for recognizing CQI methods.

Abstract Background The evidence base for quality improvement (QI) interventions is expanding rapidly. The diversity of the initiatives and the inconsistency in labeling these as QI interventions makes it challenging for researchers, policymakers, and QI practitioners to access the literature systematically and to identify relevant publications. Methods We evaluated search strategies developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed based on free text words, Medical subject headings (MeSH), QI intervention components, continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods, and combinations of the strategies. Three sets of pertinent QI intervention publications were used for validation. Two independent expert reviewers screened publications for relevance. We compared the yield, recall rate, and precision of the search strategies for the identification of QI publications and for a subset of empirical studies on effects of QI interventions. Results The search yields ranged from 2,221 to 216,167 publications. Mean recall rates for reference publications ranged from 5% to 53% for strategies with yields of 50,000 publications or fewer. The 'best case' strategy, a simple text word search with high face validity ('quality' AND 'improv*' AND 'intervention*') identified 44%, 24%, and 62% of influential intervention articles selected by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) experts, a set of exemplar articles provided by members of the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) group, and a sample from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) register of studies, respectively. We applied the search strategy to a PubMed search for articles published in 10 pertinent journals in a three-year period which retrieved 183 publications. Among these, 67% were deemed relevant to QI by at least one of two independent raters. Forty percent were classified as empirical studies reporting on a QI intervention. Conclusions The presented search terms and operating characteristics can be used to guide the identification of QI intervention publications. Even with extensive iterative development, we achieved only moderate recall rates of reference publications. Consensus development on QI reporting and initiatives to develop QI-relevant MeSH terms are urgently needed.

Objective

Valid, reliable critical appraisal tools advance quality improvement (QI) intervention impacts by helping stakeholders identify higher quality studies. QI approaches are diverse and differ from clinical interventions. Widely used critical appraisal instruments do not take unique QI features into account and existing QI tools (eg, Standards for QI Reporting Excellence) are intended for publication guidance rather than critical appraisal. This study developed and psychometrically tested a critical appraisal instrument, the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) for assessing QI-specific features of QI publications.

Methods

Approaches to developing the tool and ensuring validity included a literature review, in-person and online survey expert panel input, and application to empirical examples. We investigated psychometric properties in a set of diverse QI publications (N=54) by analysing reliability measures and item endorsement rates and explored sources of disagreement between reviewers.

Results

The QI-MQCS includes 16 content domains to evaluate QI intervention publications: Organisational Motivation, Intervention Rationale, Intervention Description, Organisational Characteristics, Implementation, Study Design, Comparator Description, Data Sources, Timing, Adherence/Fidelity, Health Outcomes, Organisational Readiness, Penetration/Reach, Sustainability, Spread and Limitations. Median inter-rater agreement for QI-MQCS items was κ 0.57 (83% agreement). Item statistics indicated sufficient ability to differentiate between publications (median quality criteria met 67%). Internal consistency measures indicated coherence without excessive conceptual overlap (absolute mean interitem correlation=0.19). The critical appraisal instrument is accompanied by a user manual detailing What to consider, Where to look and How to rate.

Conclusions

We developed a ready-to-use, valid and reliable critical appraisal instrument applicable to healthcare QI intervention publications, but recognise scope for continuing refinement.

The implementation of research findings into healthcare practice has become increasingly recognised as a major priority for researchers, service providers, research funders and policymakers over the past decade. Nine years after its establishment, Implementation Science, an international online open access journal, currently publishes over 150 articles each year. This is fewer than 30% of those submitted for publication. The majority of manuscript rejections occur at the point of initial editorial screening, frequently because we judge them to fall outside of journal scope. There are a number of common reasons as to why manuscripts are rejected on grounds of scope. Furthermore, as the field of implementation research has evolved and our journal submissions have risen, we have, out of necessity, had to become more selective in what we publish. We have also expanded our scope, particularly around patient-mediated and population health interventions, and will monitor the impact of such changes. We hope this editorial on our evolving priorities and common reasons for rejection without peer review will help authors to better judge the relevance of their papers to Implementation Science.