SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Utökad sökning

WFRF:(Reed Julie)
 

Sökning: WFRF:(Reed Julie) > Quality of locally ...

Quality of locally designed surveys in a quality improvement collaborative : review of survey validity and identification of common errors

Reed, Julie (författare)
Högskolan i Halmstad,Akademin för hälsa och välfärd,Julie Reed Consultancy Ltd, London, United Kingdom
Johnson, Julie K. (författare)
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, United States
Zanni, Robert (författare)
Monmouth Medical Center, Long Branch, United States
visa fler...
Messier, Randy (författare)
University of New Hampshire, Durham, United States
Asfour, Fadi (författare)
The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC), Utah, Salt Lake City, United States
Godfrey, Marjorie M. (författare)
University of New Hampshire, Durham, United States
visa färre...
 (creator_code:org_t)
London : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2024
2024
Engelska.
Ingår i: BMJ Open Quality. - London : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2399-6641. ; 13
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
Abstract Ämnesord
Stäng  
  • Objective: Surveys are a commonly used tool in quality improvement (QI) projects, but little is known about the standards to which they are designed and applied. We aimed to investigate the quality of surveys used within a QI collaborative, and to characterise the common errors made in survey design.Methods: Five reviewers (two research methodology and QI, three clinical and QI experts) independently assessed 20 surveys, comprising 250 survey items, that were developed in a North American cystic fibrosis lung transplant transition collaborative. Content Validity Index (CVI) scores were calculated for each survey. Reviewer consensus discussions decided an overall quality assessment for each survey and survey item (analysed using descriptive statistics) and explored the rationale for scoring (using qualitative thematic analysis).Results: 3/20 surveys scored as high quality (CVI >80%). 19% (n=47) of survey items were recommended by the reviewers, with 35% (n=87) requiring improvements, and 46% (n=116) not recommended. Quality assessment criteria were agreed upon. Types of common errors identified included the ethics and appropriateness of questions and survey format; usefulness of survey items to inform learning or lead to action, and methodological issues with survey questions, survey response options; and overall survey design.Conclusion: Survey development is a task that requires careful consideration, time and expertise. QI teams should consider whether a survey is the most appropriate form for capturing information during the improvement process. There is a need to educate and support QI teams to adhere to good practice and avoid common errors, thereby increasing the value of surveys for evaluation and QI. The methodology, quality assessment criteria and common errors described in this paper can provide a useful resource for this purpose. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Ämnesord

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Hälsovetenskap (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Health Sciences (hsv//eng)

Nyckelord

collaborative
breakthrough groups
healthcare quality improvement
quality improvement methodologies
surveys

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)
art (ämneskategori)

Hitta via bibliotek

Till lärosätets databas

Sök utanför SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy