Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > What to expect when you're evaluating healthcar...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities. / Brewster, Liz; Aveling, Emma Louise; Martin, Graham et al.
In: BMJ Quality and Safety, Vol. 24, No. 5, 01.05.2015, p. 318-324.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Brewster, L, Aveling, EL, Martin, G, Tarrant, C, Dixon-Woods, M & The Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2 Core Group Collaboration and Writing Committee 2015, 'What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities', BMJ Quality and Safety, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 318-324. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003732

APA

Brewster, L., Aveling, E. L., Martin, G., Tarrant, C., Dixon-Woods, M., & The Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2 Core Group Collaboration and Writing Committee (2015). What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities. BMJ Quality and Safety, 24(5), 318-324. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003732

Vancouver

Brewster L, Aveling EL, Martin G, Tarrant C, Dixon-Woods M, The Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2 Core Group Collaboration and Writing Committee. What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities. BMJ Quality and Safety. 2015 May 1;24(5):318-324. Epub 2015 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003732

Author

Brewster, Liz ; Aveling, Emma Louise ; Martin, Graham et al. / What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement : a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities. In: BMJ Quality and Safety. 2015 ; Vol. 24, No. 5. pp. 318-324.

Bibtex

@article{514474b6725848aca66a86a6c29416cb,
title = "What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities",
abstract = "Evaluation of improvement initiatives in healthcare is essential to establishing whether interventions are effective and to understanding how and why they work in order to enable replication. Although valuable, evaluation is often complicated by tensions and friction between evaluators, implementers and other stakeholders. Drawing on the literature, we suggest that these tensions can arise from a lack of shared understanding of the goals of the evaluation; confusion about roles, relationships and responsibilities; data burdens; issues of data flows and confidentiality; the discomforts of being studied and the impact of disappointing or otherwise unwelcome results. We present a possible approach to managing these tensions involving the co-production and use of a concordat. We describe how we developed a concordat in the context of an evaluation of a complex patient safety improvement programme known as Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2. The concordat development process involved partners (evaluators, designers, funders and others) working together at the outset of the project to agree a set of principles to guide the conduct of the evaluation. We suggest that while the concordat is a useful resource for resolving conflicts that arise during evaluation, the process of producing it is perhaps even more important, helping to make explicit unspoken assumptions, clarify roles and responsibilities, build trust and establish open dialogue and shared understanding. The concordat we developed established some core principles that may be of value for others involved in evaluation to consider. But rather than seeing our document as a ready-made solution, there is a need for recognition of the value of the process of co-producing a locally agreed concordat in enabling partners in the evaluation to work together effectively.",
author = "Liz Brewster and Aveling, {Emma Louise} and Graham Martin and Carolyn Tarrant and Mary Dixon-Woods and Nick Barber and Julian Bion and Matthew Cooke and Steve Cross and Hugh Flanagan and Christine Goeschel and Rose Jarvis and Peter Pronovost and Peter Spurgeon and {The Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2 Core Group Collaboration and Writing Committee}",
year = "2015",
month = may,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003732",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "318--324",
journal = "BMJ Quality and Safety",
issn = "2044-5415",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement

T2 - a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities

AU - Brewster, Liz

AU - Aveling, Emma Louise

AU - Martin, Graham

AU - Tarrant, Carolyn

AU - Dixon-Woods, Mary

AU - Barber, Nick

AU - Bion, Julian

AU - Cooke, Matthew

AU - Cross, Steve

AU - Flanagan, Hugh

AU - Goeschel, Christine

AU - Jarvis, Rose

AU - Pronovost, Peter

AU - Spurgeon, Peter

AU - The Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2 Core Group Collaboration and Writing Committee

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - Evaluation of improvement initiatives in healthcare is essential to establishing whether interventions are effective and to understanding how and why they work in order to enable replication. Although valuable, evaluation is often complicated by tensions and friction between evaluators, implementers and other stakeholders. Drawing on the literature, we suggest that these tensions can arise from a lack of shared understanding of the goals of the evaluation; confusion about roles, relationships and responsibilities; data burdens; issues of data flows and confidentiality; the discomforts of being studied and the impact of disappointing or otherwise unwelcome results. We present a possible approach to managing these tensions involving the co-production and use of a concordat. We describe how we developed a concordat in the context of an evaluation of a complex patient safety improvement programme known as Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2. The concordat development process involved partners (evaluators, designers, funders and others) working together at the outset of the project to agree a set of principles to guide the conduct of the evaluation. We suggest that while the concordat is a useful resource for resolving conflicts that arise during evaluation, the process of producing it is perhaps even more important, helping to make explicit unspoken assumptions, clarify roles and responsibilities, build trust and establish open dialogue and shared understanding. The concordat we developed established some core principles that may be of value for others involved in evaluation to consider. But rather than seeing our document as a ready-made solution, there is a need for recognition of the value of the process of co-producing a locally agreed concordat in enabling partners in the evaluation to work together effectively.

AB - Evaluation of improvement initiatives in healthcare is essential to establishing whether interventions are effective and to understanding how and why they work in order to enable replication. Although valuable, evaluation is often complicated by tensions and friction between evaluators, implementers and other stakeholders. Drawing on the literature, we suggest that these tensions can arise from a lack of shared understanding of the goals of the evaluation; confusion about roles, relationships and responsibilities; data burdens; issues of data flows and confidentiality; the discomforts of being studied and the impact of disappointing or otherwise unwelcome results. We present a possible approach to managing these tensions involving the co-production and use of a concordat. We describe how we developed a concordat in the context of an evaluation of a complex patient safety improvement programme known as Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2. The concordat development process involved partners (evaluators, designers, funders and others) working together at the outset of the project to agree a set of principles to guide the conduct of the evaluation. We suggest that while the concordat is a useful resource for resolving conflicts that arise during evaluation, the process of producing it is perhaps even more important, helping to make explicit unspoken assumptions, clarify roles and responsibilities, build trust and establish open dialogue and shared understanding. The concordat we developed established some core principles that may be of value for others involved in evaluation to consider. But rather than seeing our document as a ready-made solution, there is a need for recognition of the value of the process of co-producing a locally agreed concordat in enabling partners in the evaluation to work together effectively.

U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003732

DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003732

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:84928947705

VL - 24

SP - 318

EP - 324

JO - BMJ Quality and Safety

JF - BMJ Quality and Safety

SN - 2044-5415

IS - 5

ER -