Myers Jennifer S, Kin Jeanne M, Billi John E, Burke Kathleen G, Harrison Richard Van
Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Quality, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2022 Apr;31(4):287-296. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012105. Epub 2021 Mar 26.
A3 problem solving is part of the Lean management approach to quality improvement (QI). However, few tools are available to assess A3 problem-solving skills. The authors sought to develop an assessment tool for problem-solving A3s with an accompanying self-instruction package and to test agreement in assessments made by individuals who teach A3 problem solving.
After reviewing relevant literature, the authors developed an A3 assessment tool and self-instruction package over five improvement cycles. Lean experts and individuals from two institutions with QI proficiency and experience teaching QI provided iterative feedback on the materials. Tests of inter-rater agreement were conducted in cycles 3, 4 and 5. The final assessment tool was tested in a study involving 12 raters assessing 23 items on six A3s that were modified to enable testing a range of scores.
The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for overall assessment of an A3 (rater's mean on 23 items per A3 compared across 12 raters and 6 A3s) was 0.89 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98), indicating excellent reliability. For the 20 items with appreciable variation in scores across A3s, ICCs ranged from 0.41 to 0.97, indicating fair to excellent reliability. Raters from two institutions scored items similarly (mean ratings of 2.10 and 2.13, p=0.57). Physicians provided marginally higher ratings than QI professionals (mean ratings of 2.17 and 2.00, p=0.003). Raters averaged completing the self-instruction package in 1.5 hours, then rated six A3s in 2.0 hours.
This study provides evidence of the reliability of a tool to assess healthcare QI project proposals that use the A3 problem-solving approach. The tool also demonstrated evidence of measurement, content and construct validity. QI educators and practitioners can use the free online materials to assess learners' A3s, provide formative and summative feedback on QI project proposals and enhance their teaching.
A3 问题解决是精益管理质量改进方法的一部分。然而,用于评估 A3 问题解决技能的工具很少。作者试图开发一种用于解决 A3 问题的评估工具以及配套的自我指导包,并测试讲授 A3 问题解决的人员所做评估的一致性。
在查阅相关文献后,作者在五个改进周期内开发了 A3 评估工具和自我指导包。精益专家以及来自两个具备质量改进能力和质量改进教学经验机构的人员对这些材料提供了迭代反馈。在第 3、4 和 5 个周期进行了评分者间一致性测试。最终评估工具在一项研究中进行了测试,该研究涉及 12 名评分者对六个经过修改以能够测试一系列分数的 A3 上的 23 个项目进行评估。
对一个 A3 进行总体评估的组内相关系数(ICC)(12 名评分者对 6 个 A3 中每个 A3 的 23 个项目的评分者均值)为 0.89(95%可信区间 0.75 至 0.98),表明可靠性极佳。对于 20 个在不同 A3 上分数有明显差异的项目,ICC 范围为 0.41 至 0.97,表明可靠性从中等到极佳。来自两个机构的评分者对项目的评分相似(平均评分分别为 2.10 和 2.13,p = 0.57)。医生给出的评分略高于质量改进专业人员(平均评分分别为 2.17 和 2.00,p = 0.003)。评分者平均用 1.5 小时完成自我指导包,然后用 2.0 小时对六个 A3 进行评分。
本研究为一种用于评估采用 A3 问题解决方法医疗质量改进项目提案的工具的可靠性提供了证据。该工具还展示了测量、内容和结构效度的证据。质量改进教育工作者和从业者可以使用免费的在线材料来评估学习者的 A3,对质量改进项目提案提供形成性和总结性反馈,并改进他们的教学。