Indiana University Bloomington, USA.
American Institutes for Research (AIR), USA.
Eval Health Prof. 2024 Jun;47(2):154-166. doi: 10.1177/01632787241234882.
In healthcare and related fields, there is often a gap between research and practice. Scholars have developed frameworks to support dissemination and implementation of best practices, such as the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, which shows how scientific innovations are conveyed to practitioners through tools, training, and technical assistance (TA). Underpinning those aspects of the model are evaluation and continuous quality improvement (CQI). However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that the approaches to and outcomes from CQI in healthcare vary considerably, and that more evaluative work is needed. Therefore, this paper describes an assessment of CQI processes within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network, a large TA/TTC system in the United States comprised of 39 distinct centers. We conducted key informant interviews ( = 71 representing 28 centers in the Network) and three surveys (100% center response rates) focused on CQI, time/effort allocation, and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. We used data from each of these study components to provide a robust picture of CQI within a TA/TTC system, identifying Network-specific concepts, concerns about conflation of the GPRA data with CQI, and principles that might be studied more generally.
在医疗保健和相关领域,研究与实践之间常常存在差距。学者们已经开发出了一些框架来支持最佳实践的传播和实施,例如传播和实施的互动系统框架,该框架展示了如何通过工具、培训和技术援助(TA)将科学创新传达给实践者。该模型的这些方面的基础是评估和持续质量改进(CQI)。然而,最近的一项荟萃分析表明,医疗保健中的 CQI 方法和结果差异很大,需要更多的评估工作。因此,本文描述了对美国毒品滥用和心理健康服务管理局(SAMHSA)技术转让中心(TTC)网络内 CQI 流程的评估,该网络是一个由 39 个不同中心组成的大型 TA/TTC 系统。我们进行了重点知情人访谈(= 71 人,代表网络中的 28 个中心)和三项调查(中心回复率为 100%),重点关注 CQI、时间/精力分配以及政府绩效和结果法案(GPRA)措施。我们使用了来自这些研究组成部分的数据,为 TA/TTC 系统内的 CQI 提供了一个强有力的描述,确定了网络特有的概念、对 GPRA 数据与 CQI 混淆的担忧,以及可能更普遍研究的原则。