Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle fidelity: a retrospective mixed methods study
File(s)EvolvingQualityImprovementSupportStrategies.pdf (551.58 KB)
Published version
Author(s)
McNicholas, Chris
Lennox, Laura
Woodcock, Thomas
Bell, Derek
Reed, Julie
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
Though widely recommended as an effective approach to quality improvement (QI), the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle method can be challenging to use and low fidelity of published accounts of the method has been reported. There is little evidence of the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by frontline teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use. Data collected from 39 frontline improvement teams provided an opportunity to retrospectively investigate PDSA cycle use and how strategies were modified to help improve this overtime.
Methods
The fidelity of 421 PDSA cycles was reviewed using a pre-defined framework, and statistical analysis examined whether fidelity changed over three annual rounds of projects. The experiences of project teams and QI support staff were investigated through document analysis and interviews.
Results
Although modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred, however, overall fidelity remained low. Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use, and application in practice. These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand; that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA; and that PDSA is easy to apply. QI strategies that evolved to overcome these challenges included project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support and investment in training QI support staff.
Conclusions
This study identifies support strategies that may help improve PDSA cycle fidelity. It provides an approach to assess minimum standards of fidelity which can be replicated elsewhere. The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working.
Though widely recommended as an effective approach to quality improvement (QI), the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle method can be challenging to use and low fidelity of published accounts of the method has been reported. There is little evidence of the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by frontline teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use. Data collected from 39 frontline improvement teams provided an opportunity to retrospectively investigate PDSA cycle use and how strategies were modified to help improve this overtime.
Methods
The fidelity of 421 PDSA cycles was reviewed using a pre-defined framework, and statistical analysis examined whether fidelity changed over three annual rounds of projects. The experiences of project teams and QI support staff were investigated through document analysis and interviews.
Results
Although modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred, however, overall fidelity remained low. Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use, and application in practice. These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand; that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA; and that PDSA is easy to apply. QI strategies that evolved to overcome these challenges included project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support and investment in training QI support staff.
Conclusions
This study identifies support strategies that may help improve PDSA cycle fidelity. It provides an approach to assess minimum standards of fidelity which can be replicated elsewhere. The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working.
Date Issued
2019-05
Date Acceptance
2018-12-30
Citation
BMJ Quality and Safety, 2019, 28 (5), pp.356-365
ISSN
2044-5415
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
Start Page
356
End Page
365
Journal / Book Title
BMJ Quality and Safety
Volume
28
Issue
5
Copyright Statement
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Sponsor
Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
The Health Foundation
Grant Number
N/A
6595
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Health Care Sciences & Services
Health Policy & Services
PDSA
Plan-Do-Study-Act
quality improvement
quality improvement methodologies
1117 Public Health and Health Services
1302 Curriculum and Pedagogy
1103 Clinical Sciences
Health Policy & Services
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2019-03-18