↓ Skip to main content

Keys to successful implementation of a French national quality indicator in health care organizations: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Keys to successful implementation of a French national quality indicator in health care organizations: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1794-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathias Waelli, Marie-Léandre Gomez, Claude Sicotte, Adrian Zicari, Jean-Yves Bonnefond, Philippe Lorino, Etienne Minvielle

Abstract

Several countries have launched public reporting systems based on quality indicators (QIs) to increase transparency and improve quality in health care organizations (HCOs). However, a prerequisite to quality improvement is successful local QI implementation. The aim of this study was to explore the pathway through which a mandatory QI of the French national public reporting system, namely the quality of the anesthesia file (QAF), was put into practice. Seven ethnographic case studies in French HCOs combining in situ observations and 37 semi-structured interviews. A significant proportion of potential QAF users, such as anesthetists or other health professionals were often unaware of quality data. They were, however, involved in improvement actions to meet the QAF criteria. In fact, three intertwined factors influenced QAF appropriation by anesthesia teams and impacted practice. The first factor was the action of clinical managers (chief anesthetists and head of department) who helped translate public policy into local practice largely by providing legitimacy by highlighting the scientific evidence underlying QAF, achieving consensus among team members, and pointing out the value of QAF as a means of work recognition. The two other factors related to the socio-material context, namely the coherence of information systems and the quality of interpersonal ties within the department. Public policy tends to focus on the metrological validity of QIs and on ranking methods and overlooks QI implementation. However, effective QI implementation depends on local managerial activity that is often invisible, in interaction with socio-material factors. When developing national quality improvement programs, health authorities might do well to specifically target these clinical managers who act as invaluable mediators. Their key role should be acknowledged and they ought to be provided with adequate resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 54 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 14%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,818,042
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,301
of 7,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,469
of 319,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#158
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.