NIHR CLAHRC NWL, Chelsea and Westminster Hosptial, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Improvement Team, Office of Medical Director, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 May;28(5):356-365. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007605. Epub 2019 Mar 18.
Although widely recommended as an effective approach to quality improvement (QI), the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle method can be challenging to use, and low fidelity of published accounts of the method has been reported. There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by front-line teams, nor how to support and improve the method's use. Data collected from 39 front-line improvement teams provided an opportunity to retrospectively investigate PDSA cycle use and how strategies were modified to help improve this over time.
The fidelity of 421 PDSA cycles was reviewed using a predefined framework and statistical analysis examined whether fidelity changed over three annual rounds of projects. The experiences of project teams and QI support staff were investigated through document analysis and interviews.
Although modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred; however, overall fidelity remained low. Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use and application in practice. These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand; that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA; and that PDSA is easy to apply. QI strategies that evolved to overcome these challenges included project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support and investment in training QI support staff.
This study identifies support strategies that may help improve PDSA cycle fidelity. It provides an approach to assess minimum standards of fidelity which can be replicated elsewhere. The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working.
尽管计划-执行-研究-行动(PDSA)循环方法被广泛推荐为一种有效的质量改进(QI)方法,但它的使用具有挑战性,并且已报道该方法发表的报告中保真度较低。关于一线团队使用的 PDSA 循环的保真度以及如何支持和改进该方法的使用,几乎没有证据。从 39 个一线改进团队收集的数据提供了一个机会,可以回顾性地调查 PDSA 循环的使用情况,以及如何随着时间的推移修改策略以帮助提高这一点。
使用预定义框架审查了 421 个 PDSA 循环的保真度,并通过统计分析检查了保真度是否在三个年度项目轮次中发生变化。通过文档分析和访谈调查了项目团队和 QI 支持人员的经验。
尽管有适度的统计学意义上的改进,但 PDSA 保真度仍有提高;然而,整体保真度仍然较低。实现更高保真度的挑战反映了对 PDSA 方法学的理解、使用意图和在实践中的应用问题。这些问题因最初的 QI 培训和支持策略中的假设而加剧:即 PDSA 易于理解;团队将有动力并愿意使用 PDSA;并且 PDSA 易于应用。为克服这些挑战而演变的 QI 策略包括项目选择过程、培训重新设计、增加实践支持以及投资培训 QI 支持人员。
本研究确定了可能有助于提高 PDSA 循环保真度的支持策略。它提供了一种评估最低保真度标准的方法,可以在其他地方复制。研究结果表明,要实现高的 PDSA 保真度,需要一个逐步的协商过程,以探索不同的观点并鼓励新的工作方式。