40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      SQUIRE 2.0 ( Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature ( http://www.squire-statement.org).

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quality and Safety Education for Nurses.

          Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN) addresses the challenge of preparing nurses with the competencies necessary to continuously improve the quality and safety of the health care systems in which they work. The QSEN faculty members adapted the Institute of Medicine(1) competencies for nursing (patient-centered care, teamwork and collaboration, evidence-based practice, quality improvement, safety, and informatics), proposing definitions that could describe essential features of what it means to be a competent and respected nurse. Using the competency definitions, the authors propose statements of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) for each competency that should be developed during pre-licensure nursing education. Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN) faculty and advisory board members invite the profession to comment on the competencies and their definitions and on whether the KSAs for pre-licensure education are appropriate goals for students preparing for basic practice as a registered nurse.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What context features might be important determinants of the effectiveness of patient safety practice interventions?

            Differences in contexts (eg, policies, healthcare organisation characteristics) may explain variations in the effects of patient safety practice (PSP) implementations. However, knowledge of which contextual features are important determinants of PSP effectiveness is limited and consensus is lacking on a taxonomy of which contexts matter. Iterative, formal discussions were held with a 22-member technical expert panel composed of experts or leaders in patient safety, healthcare systems, and methods. First, potentially important contextual features were identified, focusing on five PSPs. Then, two surveys were conducted to determine the context likely to influence PSP implementations. The panel reached a consensus on a taxonomy of four broad domains of contextual features important for PSP implementations: safety culture, teamwork and leadership involvement; structural organisational characteristics (eg, size, organisational complexity or financial status); external factors (eg, financial or performance incentives or PSP regulations); and availability of implementation and management tools (eg, training organisational incentives). Panelists also tended to rate specific patient safety culture, teamwork and leadership contexts as high priority for assessing their effects on PSP implementations, but tended to rate specific organisational characteristic contexts as high priority only for use in PSP evaluations. Panelists appeared split on whether specific external factors and implementation/management tools were important for assessment or only description. This work can guide research commissioners and evaluators on the contextual features of PSP implementations that are important to report or evaluate. It represents a first step towards developing guidelines on contexts in PSP implementation evaluations. However, the science of context measurement needs maturing.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project.

              In contrast with the primary goals of science, which are to discover and disseminate new knowledge, the primary goal of improvement is to change performance. Unfortunately, scholarly accounts of the methods, experiences, and results of most medical quality improvement work are not published, either in print or electronic form. In our view this failure to publish is a serious deficiency: it limits the available evidence on efficacy, prevents critical scrutiny, deprives staff of the opportunity and incentive to clarify thinking, slows dissemination of established improvements, inhibits discovery of innovations, and compromises the ethical obligation to return valuable information to the public.The reasons for this failure are many: competing service responsibilities of and lack of academic rewards for improvement staff; editors' and peer reviewers' unfamiliarity with improvement goals and methods; and lack of publication guidelines that are appropriate for rigorous, scholarly improvement work. We propose here a draft set of guidelines designed to help with writing, reviewing, editing, interpreting, and using such reports. We envisage this draft as the starting point for collaborative development of more definitive guidelines. We suggest that medical quality improvement will not reach its full potential unless accurate and transparent reports of improvement work are published frequently and widely.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Qual Saf
                BMJ Qual Saf
                qhc
                bmjqs
                BMJ Quality & Safety
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-5415
                2044-5423
                December 2016
                25 September 2015
                : 25
                : 12
                : 986-992
                Affiliations
                [1 ]White River Junction VA Medical Center , White River Junction, Vermont, USA
                [2 ]Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth , Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
                [3 ]The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice , Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
                [4 ]Institute for Healthcare Improvement , Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Greg Ogrinc, Associate Chief of Staff for Education, White River Junction VA, 215 North Main St (111), White River Junction, VT, 05009, USA; greg.ogrinc@ 123456med.va.gov

                This paper is being co-published in: American Journal of Critical Care, American Journal of Medical Quality, Canadian Journal of Diabetes, Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, Journal of American College of Surgeons, Journal of Surgical Research, Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Journal of Nursing Care Quality, The Permanente Journal, GIMBE Evidence for Health (Italy), MedWave (Chile), and Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation, and Emergency Medicine.

                Article
                bmjqs-2015-004411
                10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
                5256233
                26369893
                dd4c0d09-9d65-4dfc-8dc5-e681d9957b44
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 19 May 2015
                : 11 July 2015
                : 17 July 2015
                Categories
                1506
                Research and Reporting Methodology
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Public health
                quality improvement,quality improvement methodologies,healthcare quality improvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article