Skip to main content

Table 1 Item-descriptive statistics of the questionnaire

From: Factors influencing success in quality-improvement collaboratives: development and psychometric testing of an instrument

Items Mean SD
Sufficient expert panel support
1.1 The collaborative chairperson was an opinion leader 4.10 0.697
1.2 The expert panel provided information and advice for changes 4.11 0.655
1.3 The collaborative chairperson was an expert on the QIC topic 4.45 0.686
1.4 The expert panel provided sufficient time for our project 4.03 0.687
1.5 The expert panel provided positive feedback for our project 3.95 0.702
1.6 The expert panel was experienced in successfully improving the care process for the QIC topic 4.09 0.758
1.7 The expert panel contributed scientific knowledge 4.25 0.742
1.8 The expert panel contributed practical experience 4.18 0.778
Effective multidisciplinary teamwork
2.9 Collaborative participation was carefully prepared and organised 3.84 0.894
2.10 General goals of the collaborative were clear 4.29 0.549
2.11 My team supported the collaborative's general goals 4.29 0.617
2.12 Management provided sufficient means and time 3.48 1.170
2.13 Management followed project progress 3.22 1.115
2.14 Management prioritised success 3.37 0.963
2.15 Team members were directly involved in changes 4.37 0.600
2.16 Team members had relevant expertise 4.41 0.539
2.17 Team members had leadership skills 4.12 0.794
2.18 Teams were motivated in implementing changes 4.19 0.637
2.19 Roles in my team were clearly defined 3.93 0.755
2.20 Participation in this project enhanced multidisciplinary collaboration in my organization 4.15 0.743
2.21 My team focused on patient improvement 4.31 0.572
2.22 My team focused on care-process improvement 4.26 0.565
Appropriate use of the improvement model
3.23 My team formulated clear goals 4.02 0.737
3.24 My team focused on achieving goals 4.05 0.719
3.25 Goals were discussed within organisation 3.71 0.805
3.26 Goals were incorporated in organisation policy 3.84 0.768
3.27 Goals were readily measurable 4.04 0.669
3.28 My team gathered measurement data 4.36 0.585
3.29 My team used measurements to plan changes 3.93 0.862
3.30 My team used measurements to test changes 3.68 0.996
3.31 My team used measurements to track progress 4.11 0.734
3.32 My team considered continuous improvement a part of working process 3.91 0.699
3.33 My team continued to aim for change 3.63 0.802
3.34 My team tracked progress continuously 3.80 0.754
Helpful collaborative processes
4.35 Useful knowledge and skills we given to my team during working conferences 3.88 0.699
4.36 Focus was on practical application of knowledge and skills at working conferences 3.78 0.651
4.37 My team shared experiences at working conferences 4.05 0.587
4.38 Working conferences focused on joint learning 3.95 0.656
4.39 My team developed skills in planning changes at working conferences 3.68 0.752
4.40 My team developed skills in processing changes at working conferences 3.66 0.756
4.41 My team developed confidence in achievability of changes at working conferences 3.88 0.721
4.42 Teams reflected on results at working conferences 4.05 0.515
4.43 My team contacted coworkers from other organisations at working conferences 3.77 0.815
4.44 My team learned from progress reporting by other teams at working conferences 3.92 0.659
4.45 Teams received feedback on progress from expert panel at working conferences 3.72 0.720
4.46 Teams supported one another at working conferences 3.49 0.774
4.47 There was competition between teams during the joint working conferences 2.74 0.996
4.48 There was a moment to reflect on achieved results 3.96 0.607
4.49 Information, ideas, and suggestions were actively exchanged at working conferences 3.65 0.694
4.50 Teams exchanged information outside working conferences 2.73 0.968
  1. SD = standard deviation; QIC = quality improvement collaborative.