Development of a Conceptual Model for Surgical Quality Improvement Collaboratives: Facilitating the Implementation and Evaluation of Collaborative Quality Improvement | Research, Methods, Statistics | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Conceptual Model of a Surgical Quality Improvement (QI) Collaborative
Conceptual Model of a Surgical Quality Improvement (QI) Collaborative

The overarching influence of the collaborative (purple) is depicted as operating on the hospital, surgical QI team, and perioperative microsystem levels of surgical QI.

Table.  Key Components of the Domains and Examples of Mechanisms of Support for Each That Can Be Offered by QI Collaboratives Within the 3 Levels of Surgical QI
Key Components of the Domains and Examples of Mechanisms of Support for Each That Can Be Offered by QI Collaboratives Within the 3 Levels of Surgical QI
1.
Minami  CA, Sheils  CR, Bilimoria  KY,  et al.  Process improvement in surgery.  Curr Probl Surg. 2016;53(2):62-96.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Guillamondegui  OD, Gunter  OL, Hines  L,  et al.  Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative to improve surgical outcomes.  J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(4):709-714; discussion 714-716. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Kaplan  HC, Provost  LP, Froehle  CM, Margolis  PA.  The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement.  BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(1):13-20.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.  From Front Office to Front Line: Essential Issues for Health Care Leaders. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 2011.
5.
Damschroder  LJ, Aron  DC, Keith  RE, Kirsh  SR, Alexander  JA, Lowery  JC.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.  Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Rycroft-Malone  J, Kitson  A, Harvey  G,  et al.  Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework.  Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(2):174-180.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    Top Down
    David Earle | Lowell General Hospital
    It appears from the diagram that the QI leadership doesn't have feedback from the outcomes portion. Additionally, the top down organization shown will eventually impede the function of the team doing the work in favor of cost, specific \"awards\" by alleged quality organizations, and pay for performance models mandated by agencies outside the hospital's control.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CMO - Surgical Momentum
    Research Letter
    December 2016

    Development of a Conceptual Model for Surgical Quality Improvement Collaboratives: Facilitating the Implementation and Evaluation of Collaborative Quality Improvement

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative, Chicago
    • 2Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
    • 3Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
    • 4Department of Hospital Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
    JAMA Surg. 2016;151(12):1181-1183. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2817

    Participation in quality improvement (QI) collaboratives has helped hospitals improve outcomes and decrease costs.1,2 As such, state-level surgical QI collaboratives have become increasingly common. However, the optimal design of an effective collaborative and its key drivers of success remain unclear. Our objective was to create a conceptual model of a surgical QI collaborative to facilitate the development, implementation, and systematic evaluation of the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC).

    Methods

    A multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team of ISQIC researchers conducted a literature review and expanded and adapted key components of existing models of health care QI to create a conceptual model for a surgical QI collaborative.3,4 Feedback from QI leaders, hospital administrators, clinical frontline staff, and quality researchers guided the evolution of the model through multiple iterations until final consensus was reached. Institutional review board approval was not required, as this research did not involve human participants.

    Results

    The conceptual model’s foundation consists of surgical QI needs that stimulate system and process changes that, in turn, result in improved outcomes. The model is cyclical to account for the iterative nature of the system and process changes made in response to QI needs. Surgical QI collaboratives can facilitate QI through initiatives that support 3 key levels of surgical QI: the hospital, the QI team, and the perioperative microsystem (eg, operating room and inpatient unit). Interrelated domains contain the key components of surgical QI that may benefit from collaborative support (Figure).

    At the hospital level, institutional leadership, QI support and capacity, QI characteristics, and hospital culture are essential for success. At the QI team level, the dynamics, attributes, and composition of the team are paramount. Last, within the perioperative microsystem level, environment, culture, and staff leadership are similarly fundamental to QI success. Components of each domain and examples of collaborative support are provided in the Table.

    Discussion

    This conceptual model provides a formal framework for the development and systematic evaluation of surgical QI collaboratives. Previous QI collaboratives have had success in improving quality, yet the mechanisms underlying this success remain unclear. Surgical QI is complex with many interrelated components and processes, impeding assessment of individual collaborative support mechanisms. By depicting the key drivers of surgical QI and their interrelatedness, this model provides a framework for collaborative QI that facilitates the generation, implementation, and evaluation of collaborative interventions.

    Conceptual models of health care QI have been previously described, but most models do not integrate QI collaborative influence on institutional drivers of success.3,5,6 Although this model was created explicitly for ISQIC, the underlying components and relationships can be applied to other QI collaboratives. As a result, this model may serve as a valuable tool for implementing and evaluating interventions in new or well-established collaboratives.

    Of note, this model is adapted from existing models for health care QI, with modifications made by consensus expert opinion.3,4 Given the paucity of data regarding the interactions between QI collaboratives and institutional QI, the individual components and relationships of this conceptual model are still in need of validation. Additionally, this model may fail to capture all inherent complexities of surgical QI at diverse hospitals. However, this model can provide an organized conceptual framework that facilitates the systematic evaluation of QI collaborative interventions.

    The success of QI collaboratives is contingent on the ability to facilitate QI within hospitals beyond what could be accomplished in the absence of collaborative support. It is imperative for QI collaboratives to evaluate the efficacy of each component to prevent resources from being allocated to ineffective support mechanisms. This conceptual model has facilitated the ongoing evaluation of ISQIC and can be similarly used by others. Such evaluations can provide valuable insight into the mechanisms underlying successful collaborative QI and help to optimize the efficacy of QI collaboratives in health care.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Corresponding Author: Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, MS, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery and Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 633 N St Clair, 20th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611 (k-bilimoria@northwestern.edu).

    Published Online: September 7, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2817

    Author Contributions: Drs Wandling and Minami had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: All Authors.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Wandling, Minami, Holl, Bilimoria.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Wandling, Minami, Holl.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All Authors.

    Statistical analysis: Wandling.

    Obtaining funding: Bilimoria.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Wandling, Minami, Yang, Holl.

    Study supervision: O'Leary, Yang, Holl, Bilimoria.

    No additional contributions: Johnson.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

    Funding/Support: This research was supported by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, Health Care Service Corp, and grant R01HS024516-01 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (principal investigator: Dr Bilimoria). Dr Wandling was supported by grant 1F32GM113513-01 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (principal investigator: Dr Wandling), and Dr Minami was supported by grant T-32 HS 000078 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (principal investigator: Dr Holl).

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    References
    1.
    Minami  CA, Sheils  CR, Bilimoria  KY,  et al.  Process improvement in surgery.  Curr Probl Surg. 2016;53(2):62-96.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Guillamondegui  OD, Gunter  OL, Hines  L,  et al.  Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative to improve surgical outcomes.  J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(4):709-714; discussion 714-716. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Kaplan  HC, Provost  LP, Froehle  CM, Margolis  PA.  The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement.  BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(1):13-20.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.  From Front Office to Front Line: Essential Issues for Health Care Leaders. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 2011.
    5.
    Damschroder  LJ, Aron  DC, Keith  RE, Kirsh  SR, Alexander  JA, Lowery  JC.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.  Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Rycroft-Malone  J, Kitson  A, Harvey  G,  et al.  Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework.  Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(2):174-180.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×