Designing, delivering and evaluating a specialty-specific quality improvement course for the rheumatology multidisciplinary team

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objectives: Quality improvement (QI) methodology aims to drive improvement in healthcare using a systematic approach. QI is an integral part of healthcare professional training curricula. However, many members of the rheumatology community have not accessed formal QI methodology training, including those expected to supervise QI activity. The BSR QI practical methodology workshop was created to address this knowledge gap in a specialty-specific course designed and delivered by, and for, the rheumatology multidisciplinary team. Methods: Course design centred on the Institute for Healthcare Improvement approach, 'Model for improvement', adapting materials from the well-established Trainees Improving Patient Safety through QI (TIPSQI) initiative. The course was delivered online (2021) and face-to-face (2022). Kolbs' four-stage experiential learning cycle informed course design utilizing rheumatology-specific cases and facilitated breakout rooms to teach QI tools. Kirkpatrick's four-stage model was used to design the course evaluation. Data from surveys completed before, immediately after, and 6 months following the courses, were used to evaluate the course. Results: Baseline knowledge of specific QI tools was limited. Post course evaluation demonstrated increased confidence to use and teach tools. Sustained confidence to contribute to and lead QI activity was reported. Course satisfaction was high; 100% of delegates would recommend the course to colleagues. Conclusion: This successful, rheumatology-specific QI course led to improved delegate knowledge of QI methodology and confidence in leading and teaching QI initiatives. It has contributed to building momentum in a growing rheumatology QI community of practice and to embedding a sustainable culture of improvement across the rheumatology community.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.