Skip to main content

Table 1 Overall characteristics of the QI collaboratives structured by the 14 crosscutting QIC components (identified from Nadeem et al. by a comprehensive literature review and expert opinions [8])

From: In-depth comparison of two quality improvement collaboratives from different healthcare areas based on registry data—possible factors contributing to sustained improvement in outcomes beyond the project time

1) Length of project 6 months 12 months
2) Convened expert panel
Breakthrough series model calls for a planning group that identifies targets for improvement change and plans the collaborative.
3 experts (including head of register) 8 experts (one project group with five persons, and one steering group with three persons including head of register)
3) Organisations required to demonstrate commitmenta Yes Yes
4) In-person learning sessions 2 days 8 days (4 × 2 days)
5) Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles (PDSAs) Yes Yes
6) Multidisciplinary QI Team Not specified Yes (patients were included)
7) Project responsible at unit Yes Yes (called coach)
8) QI team calls
Calls among QI team members or members in other participating organisations are common.
A mailing list with all participants was available and participants were encouraged to do so.
Coaches had the task of participating in meetings with all coaches (a phone call once a month, in total 10 times).
9) Email or web Support
Email, listservs, or others forms of web support have become a common approach for providing ongoing support.
Done by the head of register.
Done by the project group.
8 webinars were provided.
10) Leadership involvement/outreach Not specified Yes, guaranteed by the coaches
11) Sites collected reviewed data and used feedback Yes Yes
12) External support with data synthesis and feedback Not specified Yes (QI team members experienced data extraction as difficult)
13) Training for ‘non-QI Team Staff Members’ by experts No Yes, indirectly
(8 webinars were open to everybody)
14) Training for ‘non-QI members’ by the QI team Yes Partly
Additional information
 Project responsibleb One competence centre for national quality registries (A) Two competence centres for national quality registries (B + C)
 Information/invitation Internal to all registering units Open on the web
 Overall goal A) Decrease of average age of registered persons (e.g. discovery of patients with osteoarthritis in an early stage)
B) Increased number of patients with a minimum level of physical activity after one year
A) Better quality of life for persons with heart failure
B) Decreased cases of re-admission within 30 daysc
 Costs 32 000 USD 166 000 USD
  1. aSome interested teams withdrew because of non-commitment
  2. bSix regional competence centres for the National Quality Registries have been established with the mission to promote development of new registries and to provide service to existing registries, for example for technical operations, analytical work and use of registry data supporting clinical quality improvement [14]
  3. cIdentified steps in order to reach goal: correct diagnosis, treatment recommended, structured follow-up at heart failure units, collaboration between primary care and hospital, quality evaluation by using the SwedeHF. Measurements: number of patients with control of left ventricle function is at least 90%, with RAS-blockers treatment is at least 90%, with beta-blockers treatment is at least 90%, that participated in organised physical activity is at least 90%, with structured follow-up at heart failure units is at least 90%