From: A framework to improve quality of hospital-based physiotherapy: a design-based research study
Scores on a scale of 1 to 5: 1 = very inappropriate 2 = inappropriate 3 = sufficiently appropriate 4 = appropriate 5 = very appropriate | Criterion 1: Measurable (an essential and distinguishing attribute: discriminatory power) | Criterion 2: Acceptable (adequate to satisfy a need, requirement or standard: safety, acceptance) | Criterion 3: Impact (to have a strong effect on quality: focused and efficient) | Criterion 4: Accessible (easy to understand and use: cost, effort) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Method 1: Continuing Education Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 3 ± Number of courses is measurable, but doubts about discriminatory power - Measurable to what extent someone has taken it, not what someone has learned from it | Score: 4 ⊕ This will be acceptable for everyone - If you have to make certain development according to departmental plan, possibly not acceptable | Score: 4 ± If it also concerns non-physiotherapeutic skills, such as PDCA ± Training is the 1st step, implementation/application the 2nd step - This does not give a good impression of the quality (attendance obligation versus result obligation) | Score: 4 ± Low effort, high cost ± Costs are manageable at team level - Dependent on departmental budget |
Method 2: Feedback PREMs and PROMs Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 5 ⊕ If PREMS and PROMS are collected per person or per department, this can be easily measurable | Score: 3 ± In team with a “just-culture” acceptable ± Does require guidance and explanation - This can produce confrontational data | Score: 5 ± This is very focused, gives a good picture. Can take a lot of effort to retrieve this data. ± Easy and targeted, condition is a good set of prems and proms | Score: 3 ± Does require some effort and decisiveness from a department - Set-up can entail a lot of effort/work and a lot of costs |
Method 3: Quality portfolio Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 5 ⊕ If knowledge and skills for quality portfolio are tested annually, this can be easily measured | Score: 4 ⊕ When knowledge and skills are in good order, this may not be a problem | Score: 4 ⊕ Experience shows that this works well and uncovers gaps in knowledge and skills ⊕ Easy and fast to apply | Score: 3 ⊕ Little effort, little cost |
Method 4: Peer Observation & Feedback Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 4 ⊕ Requires uniform application ± If this is done using rubrics, this can be easily measured - More qualitative by nature | Score: 3 ⊕ Can also promote a culture of feedback and dialogue ⊕ In team with a “just-culture” acceptable. Also, acceptable if you manage security well (e.g., anonymously) ± Requires explanation and experience - Can be threatening to have a look behind the scenes | Score: 5 ± Very direct and efficient way ⊕ Peer Feedback is often considered to be very valuable, especially when adding a feedback course ⊕ Easy to use and targeted | Score: 4 ± Little cost, some effort - Team leader must be the driving force, is a risk for success |
Method 5: 360 degree feedback Median Score 3,0 | Score: 3 - The degree to which someone is willing to ask for feedback has a great influence on the result - More qualitative by nature - Requires training, experience: colleagues have difficulties with this | Score: 3 ± In team with “just-culture” acceptable ± Dependent on free choice in this - Not everyone will find it convenient to collect feedback | Score: 4 ⊕ Is multidisciplinary feedback (only valuable alongside peer feedback) ± Provided it is performed well - Pleasing each other can distort | Score: 4 ± Little cost, some effort - Difficult to complete, difficult to ask whom to ask |
Method 6: Management Information System Median Score: 4,5 | Score: 5 ⊕ Pre-eminently measurable matters ⊕ Establish the Critical Process Indicators as a team and include them in the annual development discussion - What are those Critical Process Indicators? | Score: 4 ⊕ This data is already being collected ± It is a little unclear which Critical Process Indicators are involved; this is a determining factor for this criterion | Score: 3 ⊕ Agreements are recorded ± Difficult to estimate - Says little about quality | Score: 5 ⊕ Is already there, no cost, no effort ± Difficult to estimate |
Method 7: Intervision with intercollegiate Evaluation Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 3 ± Whether measurable depends on methodology/score form ± Provided it is carried out properly - More qualitative by nature | Score: 4 ⊕ Accepted working method ⊕ After some experience - This can be experienced as threatening | Score: 5 ⊕ Very direct and efficient way | Score: 4 ⊕ Easy to fit in ± Little cost, but effort |