↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Barriers and facilitators of Canadian quality and safety teams: a mixed-methods study exploring the views of health care leaders

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Healthcare Leadership, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Barriers and facilitators of Canadian quality and safety teams: a mixed-methods study exploring the views of health care leaders
Published in
Journal of Healthcare Leadership, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/jhl.s116477
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah E White, Jill M Norris, Karen Jackson, Farah Khandwala

Abstract

Health care organizations are utilizing quality and safety (QS) teams as a mechanism to optimize care. However, there is a lack of evidence-informed best practices for creating and sustaining successful QS teams. This study aimed to understand what health care leaders viewed as barriers and facilitators to establishing/implementing and measuring the impact of Canadian acute care QS teams. Organizational senior leaders (SLs) and QS team leaders (TLs) participated. A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design included surveys (n=249) and interviews (n=89). Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables for region, organization size, and leader position. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for constant comparison analysis. Five qualitative themes overlapped with quantitative data: (1) resources, time, and capacity; (2) data availability and information technology; (3) leadership; (4) organizational plan and culture; and (5) team composition and processes. Leaders from larger organizations more often reported that clear objectives and physician champions facilitated QS teams (p<0.01). Fewer Eastern respondents viewed board/senior leadership as a facilitator (p<0.001), and fewer Ontario respondents viewed geography as a barrier to measurement (p<0.001). TLs and SLs differed on several factors, including time to meet with the team, data availability, leadership, and culture. QS teams need strong, committed leaders who align initiatives to strategic directions of the organization, foster a quality culture, and provide tools teams require for their work. There are excellent opportunities to create synergy across the country to address each organization's quality agenda.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,758,151
of 23,406,603 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Healthcare Leadership
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,096
of 419,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Healthcare Leadership
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,406,603 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them