Healthcare system intervention for prevention of birth injuries - Process evaluation of self-assessment, peer review, feedback and agreement for change

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Nyström, Monica E ^a,b   Westerlund, Anna ^a,b   Höög, Elisabet ^a,b   Millde Luthander, Charlotte ^a   Högberg, Ulf ^b,c   Grunewald, Charlotta ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIRTH INJURY; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COOPERATION; DELIVERY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MANPOWER; MEDICAL AUDIT; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; PATIENT CARE; PEER REVIEW; SELF EVALUATION; STANDARD; SWEDEN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIRTH INJURIES; CLINICAL AUDIT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HOSPITALS, MATERNITY; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT CARE TEAM; PEER REVIEW; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SELF-ASSESSMENT; SWEDEN;

EID: 84865278233     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-274     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Event reporting: the value of a nonpunitive approach. Youngberg BJ, Clin Obstet Gynecol 2008 51 4 647 655 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181899a05 18981789
2. Pfeffer J, Sutton, R: The knowing-doing gap: how smart companies turn knowledge into action Harvard Business School Press, Boston 2000
3. Shattuck lecture-clinical research to clinical practice-lost in translation? Lenfant C, N Engl J Med 2003 349 9 868 874 10.1056/NEJMsa035507 12944573
4. Characteristics of Health Care Organizations Associated With Learning and Development: Lessons From a Pilot Study. Nyström M, Quality Management in Health Care 2009 18 4 285 294 19851236
5. Pettigrew A, Whipp, R: Managing change for competitive success Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 1993
6. How often is a low Apgar score the result of substandard care during labour? Berglund S, Pettersson H, Cnattingius S, Grunewald C, BJOG 2010 117 8 968 978 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02565.x 20549871
7. Theoretical bases for team self-corrections: Fostering shared mental models. Blickensderfer E, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work team Elsevier Science/JAI Press, US, Beyerlein MM, 1 1997 249 279
8. Teamwork competencies; the interaction of team member knowledge, skills and attidtudes. Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Workforce readiness: competencies and assessment Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah, O'Neil H, 1 1997 151 174
9. Improving team decision-making performance with collaborative modeling. Jeffery AB, Maes JD, Bratton-Jeffery M-F, Team Performance Management 2005 11 1/2 40 50 10.1108/13527590510584311
10. The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. Rouse WB, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics 1992 22 6 1296 1308 10.1109/21.199457 19900850
11. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse S, Individual and Group Decision Making Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, New Jersey, Castellan NJ, 1993 221 246
12. Running shared mental models as a distributed cognitive process. Banks AP, Millward LJ, British Journal of Psychology 2000 91 4 513 531 10.1348/000712600161961 11104176
13. The role of mental models in innovative teams. Davidson G, European Journal of Innovation Management 2005 8 4 409 423 10.1108/14601060510627795
14. Self-assessment practices in large organisations Experiences from using the EFQM excellence model. Samuelsson P, Nilsson L-E, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 2002 19 1 10 23 10.1108/02656710210413426 23081907
15. Practice and implementation of self-assessment. Zink K, Schmidt A, International Journal of Quality Science 1998 3 2 147 170 10.1108/ 13598539810211969
16. Business self-assessment: a strategic tool for building process robustness and achieving integrated management. Gadd KW, Business Process Re-engineering and Management Journal 1995 1 3 66 85 10.1108/EUM0000000003894
17. Povey B, Continuous business improvement: linking the key improvement processes for your critical long-term success McGraw Hill, London 1996
18. Harvey L, Evaluating the evaluators http://www0.bcu.ac.uk/crq/ publications/inqaahe99.pdf
19. Peer Review as a Tool for Co-operation and Change. Pagani F, An analysis of an OECD working method African Security Review 2002 11 4 15 24
20. Practicing Peer Review in Organizations: A Qualifier for Knowledge Dissemination Legitimization. Bergquist M, Journal of Information Technology 2001 16 2 99 112 10.1080/02683960110054780
21. Cook Harrington Laura MS, Nursing Peer Review: A Practical Approach to Promoting Professional Nursing Accountability HCPro.Inc, Marblehead 2008
22. Sydhoff J, Lööf C, Kanström L, Peer Review en metod för utvärdering och systematisk analys i en lärandeprocess http://www.folkhalsoguiden.se/upload/folkh%c3%a4lsoarbete/kollegialgranskning. pdf
23. The impact of quality monitoring on institutions: a Danish experience at the Copenhagen Business School. Kristensen B, Quality in Higher Education 1997 3 1 87 94 10.1080/1353832960030110
24. Peer Review effectiveness: An analysis of potential loopholes within the USA Peer Review Program. Russel J, Armitage J, Managerial Auditing Journal 2006 21 1 46 62 10.1108/02686900610634757
25. An Overview of Content Analysis. Stemler S, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 2001 7 17 23082128
26. Weber RP, Basic content analysis SAGE Publication Inc, Newbury Park 2 1990
27. Systematic Higher Education Assessment and Departmental Impacts: translating the effort to meet the need. Saarinen T, Quality in higher education 1995 1 3 223 234 10.1080/1353832950010304
28. A Danish Approach to Quality in Higher Education: the Case of Aalborg University. Rasmussen P, Standards and Quality in Higher Education Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, Kogan M, 1997 245 275
29. Introduction to assessing quality in higher medical education in Iran; challenges and perspectives. Bazargan A, Quality in higher education 1999 5 1 61 68 10.1080/1353832990050106
30. Striving for excellence: how self-assessment using the business excellence model can result in step improvements in all areas of business activities. Reed DM, Shergold K, The TQM magazine 1996 8 6 48 52 10.1108/09544789610152937
31. Getting health professionals to work together. Davies C, BMJ 2000 320 7241 1021 1022 10.1136/bmj.320.7241.1021 10764344
32. A guide to our work 3 1999 http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/guide-to- work.pdf
33. Managers subjective role projects during the initial phase of an organizational change process. Nyström ME, Change and Quality in Human Service Work Hampp Publishers, Munich, Korunka CHP, 4 2005
34. Is peer review worth saving? Weiss GG, Medicine Economics 2005 18 82(4) 46 48 51-52
35. Effects of External Quality Evaluation in Chile: a preliminary study. Silva M, Reich R, Gallegos G, Quality in higher education 1997 3 1 27 35 10.1080/1353832960030104
36. A framework for collaborative improvement: lessons from the Institute for Healthcare Improvements Breakthrough Series. Kilo CM, Quality Management in Health Care 1998 6 4 1 13 10339040
37. Langley GL, Moen RD, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP, The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance Jossey Bass, San Francisco 2 2009