IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v71y2010i9p1692-1701.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of organizational context on quality improvement and patient safety efforts in infection prevention: A multi-center qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Krein, Sarah L.
  • Damschroder, Laura J.
  • Kowalski, Christine P.
  • Forman, Jane
  • Hofer, Timothy P.
  • Saint, Sanjay

Abstract

Patient safety is a healthcare priority worldwide, with most hospitals engaging in activities to improve care quality, safety and outcomes. Despite these efforts, we have limited understanding of why quality improvement efforts are successful in some hospitals and not others. Using data collected as part of a multi-center study, we closely examined quality improvement efforts and the implementation of recommended practices to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in U.S. hospitals. We compare and contrast the experiences among hospitals to better understand 'how' and 'why' certain hospitals were more successful with practice implementation when taking into consideration specific aspects of the organizational context. This study reveals that among a number of hospitals that focused on implementing practices to prevent CLABSI, the experience and outcomes varied considerably despite using similar implementation strategies. Moreover, our findings provide important insights about how and why different quality improvement strategies might perform across organizations with differing contextual characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Krein, Sarah L. & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kowalski, Christine P. & Forman, Jane & Hofer, Timothy P. & Saint, Sanjay, 2010. "The influence of organizational context on quality improvement and patient safety efforts in infection prevention: A multi-center qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(9), pages 1692-1701, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:71:y:2010:i:9:p:1692-1701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(10)00614-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benn, Jonathan & Burnett, Susan & Parand, Anam & Pinto, Anna & Iskander, Sandra & Vincent, Charles, 2009. "Studying large-scale programmes to improve patient safety in whole care systems: Challenges for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1767-1776, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lawton, Julia & Jenkins, Nicholas & Darbyshire, Julie & Farmer, Andrew & Holman, Rury & Hallowell, Nina, 2012. "Understanding the outcomes of multi-centre clinical trials: A qualitative study of health professional experiences and views," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(4), pages 574-581.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ovretveit, John, 2009. "The contribution of new social science research to patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1780-1783, December.
    2. Sheard, Laura & Marsh, Claire & O'Hara, Jane & Armitage, Gerry & Wright, John & Lawton, Rebecca, 2017. "The Patient Feedback Response Framework – Understanding why UK hospital staff find it difficult to make improvements based on patient feedback: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 19-27.
    3. Iedema, Rick, 2009. "New approaches to researching patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1701-1704, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:71:y:2010:i:9:p:1692-1701. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.