Quality improvement training: experiences of frontline staff

• Published in: International journal of health care quality assurance 2013-01, Vol.26 (7), p.627-641
• Main Authors: Daugherty, Jill D, Blake, Sarah C, Kohler, Susan S, Culler, Steven D, Hawley, Jonathan N, Rask, Kimberly J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bias; Curricula; Education; Educational materials; Employees; Empowerment; Health & social care; Health administration; Health care industry; Health Personnel - education; Health service delivery; Health service quality; Humans; Informants; Inservice Training - methods; Inservice Training - organization & administration; Interviews; Interviews as Topic; Leadership; Line managers; Managers; Medical research; Program Evaluation - methods; Qualitative Research; Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization & administration; Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards; Quality improvement; Quality Improvement - organization & administration; Quality Improvement - standards; Quality management; Quality of care; Quality of service; Sampling; Studies; Supervisors; Teaching methods; Training; United States
• ISSN: 0952-6862; 1758-6542
• DOI: 10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2011-0056

Purpose – Healthcare organizations have employed numerous strategies to promote quality improvement (QI) initiatives, yet little is known about their effectiveness. In 2008, staff in one organization developed an in-house QI training program designed for frontline managers and staff and this article aims to report employee perspectives . Design/methodology/approach Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 course participants to examine satisfaction, self-assessed change in proficiency and ability to successfully engage with QI initiatives. Sampling bias may have occurred as the participants volunteered for the study and they may not represent all course participants. Recall bias is also possible since most interviews took place one year after the course was completed to assess long-term impact. Respondents were asked to self-rate their pre- and post-course knowledge and skill, which may not represent what was actually learned. Findings – Informants reported that the course expanded their QI knowledge and skills, and that supervisor support for the course was essential for success. Additionally, the course QI project provided participants with an opportunity to translate theory into practice, which has the potential to influence patient outcomes. Practical implications – Several lessons for future QI training can be gleaned from this evaluation, including respondent opinions that it is challenging to offer one program when participants have different QI knowledge levels before the course begins, that “booster sessions” or refresher classes after the course ends would be helpful and that supervisor support was critical to successful QI-initiative implementation. Originality/value – This study conducts in-depth interviews with QI course participants to elicit staff feedback on program structure and effectiveness. These findings can be used by QI educators to disseminate more effective training programs.