Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author
Ramaswamy, Rohit
dc.contributor.author
Reed, Julie
dc.contributor.author
Livesley, Nigel
dc.contributor.author
Boguslavsky, Victor
dc.contributor.author
Garcia Elorrio, Ezequiel
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.contributor.author
Sax, Sylvia
dc.contributor.author
Houleymata, Diarra
dc.contributor.author
Kimble, Leighann
dc.contributor.author
Parry, Gareth
dc.date.available
2020-03-13T17:55:10Z
dc.date.issued
2018-04
dc.identifier.citation
Ramaswamy, Rohit; Reed, Julie; Livesley, Nigel; Boguslavsky, Victor; Garcia Elorrio, Ezequiel; et al.; Unpacking the black box of improvement; Oxford University Press; International Journal For Quality In Health Care; 30; 4-2018; 15-19
dc.identifier.issn
1353-4505
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/99498
dc.description.abstract
During the Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-Better Health Care: How do we learn about improvement, participants discussed the need to unpack the black box of improvement. The black box refers to the fact that when quality improvement interventions are described or evaluated, there is a tendency to assume a simple, linear path between the intervention and the outcomes it yields. It is also assumed that it is enough to evaluate the results without understanding the process of by which the improvement took place. However, quality improvement interventions are complex, nonlinear and evolve in response to local settings. To accurately assess the effectiveness of quality improvement and disseminate the learning, there must be a greater understanding of the complexity of quality improvement work. To remain consistent with the language used in Salzburg, we refer to this as unpacking the black box of improvement. To illustrate the complexity of improvement, this article introduces four quality improvement case studies. In unpacking the black box, we present and demonstrate how Cynefin framework from complexity theory can be used to categorize and evaluate quality improvement interventions. Many quality improvement projects are implemented in complex contexts, necessitating an approach defined as probesense- respond. In this approach, teams experiment, learn and adapt their changes to their local setting. Quality improvement professionals intuitively use the probe-sense-respond approach in their work but document and evaluate their projects using language for simple or complicated' contexts, rather than the complex contexts in which they work. As a result, evaluations tend to ask 'How can we attribute outcomes to the intervention, rather than 'What were the adaptations that took place. By unpacking the black box of improvement, improvers can more accurately document and describe their interventions, allowing evaluators to ask the right questions and more adequately evaluate quality improvement interventions.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language.iso
eng
dc.publisher
Oxford University Press
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
dc.subject
CYNEFIN FRAMEWORK
dc.subject
EVALUATION COMPLEX SYSTEMS
dc.subject
IMPROVEMENT
dc.subject.classification
Otras Ciencias de la Salud
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias de la Salud
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS MÉDICAS Y DE LA SALUD
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.title
Unpacking the black box of improvement
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.date.updated
2020-03-11T13:00:45Z
dc.journal.volume
30
dc.journal.pagination
15-19
dc.journal.pais
Reino Unido
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.journal.ciudad
Oxford
dc.description.fil
Fil: Ramaswamy, Rohit. University of North Carolina; Estados Unidos
dc.description.fil
Fil: Reed, Julie. Nihr Clarch Northwest London; Estados Unidos
dc.description.fil
Fil: Livesley, Nigel. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; Estados Unidos
dc.description.fil
Fil: Boguslavsky, Victor. University Research Co; Estados Unidos
dc.description.fil
Fil: Garcia Elorrio, Ezequiel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Sax, Sylvia. University of Heidelberg; Alemania
dc.description.fil
Fil: Houleymata, Diarra. Applying Science to Strengthen and Improve Systems Project,; Malí
dc.description.fil
Fil: Kimble, Leighann. University Research Co; Estados Unidos
dc.description.fil
Fil: Parry, Gareth. Institute of Healthcare Improvement; Estados Unidos
dc.journal.title
International Journal For Quality In Health Care
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/30/suppl_1/15/4860379
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy009
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909642
Archivos asociados