Physician engagement in quality improvement: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

Objective: The positive impact of quality improvement (QI) on organizational and system outcomes has the potential to contribute to a high-performing health system. Physician engagement in QI has been linked to the success and sustainability of improvement initiatives. An informed overview of physicians’ interests in QI, opportunities to be involved in QI efforts, and insights into physicians’ experiences of participation, both in hospital and general practice is critical to understanding the challenges and opportunities for physician engagement in QI. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into both the number of physicians currently trained and participating in QI and identify key barriers preventing physicians from being trained and participating in QI.
Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was used to evaluate physician engagement in QI. A total of 231 physicians across Ontario, Canada, participated in the study.
Results: Results indicate that leadership should continue to make Quality Improvement (QI) training opportunities available to physicians.
Conclusions: If more physicians are to be engaged in QI, there is a need to clearly identify and communicate opportunities for QI projects.

Keywords

Quality improvement / Survey / Cross-sectional studies / Pilot study / Physician engagement

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to all physicians for completing and submitting survey responses. We thank the Ontario Medical Association and Ontario Hospital Association for assistance with recruitment. We thank Ontario Health for there assistance developing the survey.

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

FUNDING

This research received no external funding.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

INFORMED CONSENT

Obtained.

ETHICS APPROVAL

The Publication Ethics Committee of the Sciedu Press. The journal’s policies adhere to the Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; externally double-blind peer reviewed.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

DATA SHARING STATEMENT

No additional data are available.

OPEN ACCESS

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

COPYRIGHTS

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.

References

[1] Batalden PB, Davidoff F. What is “quality improvement” and how can it transform healthcare? Qual Saf Health Care. 2007; 16(1): 2-3. PMid: 17301192. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2006.022046

[2] Zeiger TM, Thatcher EJ, Kirpekar S, et al. Achieving Large-Scale Quality Improvement in Primary Care Annual Wellness Visits and Hierarchical Condition Coding. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2022; 37(6): 1457-1462. PMid: 35048289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07323-1

[3] Mahbooba Z, Chera B, Evarts L. Engaging Physicians in Quality Improvement in a Hospital Setting. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2021; 36(5): 328-336. PMid: 33901037. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jmq.0000735456.03039.2e

[4] Jones B, Kwong E, Warburton W. Quality improvement made simple. 2021. https://doi.org/10.37829/HF-2021-I05

[5] Deilkås ET, Rosta J, Bååthe F, et al. Physician participation in quality improvement work- interest and opportunity: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Primary Care. 2022; 23(1). PMid: 36284296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01878-6

[6] Stone S, Lee HC, Sharek PJ. Perceived Factors Associated with Sustained Improvement Following Participation in a Multicenter Quality Improvement Collaborative. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2016. PMid: 27301834. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(16)42042-8

[7] Weigl M, Hornung S, Angerer P, et al. The effects of improving hospital physicians working conditions on patient care: a prospective, controlled intervention study. BMC Health Services Research. 2013; 13(1). PMid: 24103290. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-401

[8] Lindgren Å, Bååthe F, Dellve L. Why risk professional fulfilment: a grounded theory of physician engagement in healthcare development. International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 2013; 28(2): e138-e157. PMid: 23169393. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2142

[9] Mathews SC, Pronovost PJ. Physician Autonomy and Informed Decision Making. JAMA. 2008; 300(24): 2913. PMid: 19109120. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.846

[10] Bååthe F, Rosta J, Bringedal B, et al. How do doctors experience the interactions among professional fulfilment, organisational factors and quality of patient care? A qualitative study in a Norwegian hospital. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(5): e026971. PMid: 31129585. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026971

[11] Perreira T, Prokopy M, Brown A, et al. Measuring Physician Engagement in Quality Improvement: A Pilot Study. Canadian Journal of Physician Leadership. 2020; 6(3): 111-122. https://doi.org/10.37964/cr24717

[12] Ontario Medical Association. OMA factsheet [Fact sheet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.oma.org/newsroom/media-kit/oma-factsheet

[13] VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for Improving Response Rates in Surveys of Physicians. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 2007; 30(4): 303-321. PMid: 17986667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278707307899

[14] Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm. In National Academies Press eBooks. 2001. https://doi.org/10.17226/10027