We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact us so we can address the problem.
Contextualizing learning to improve care using collaborative communities of practices
© The Author(s). 2016
- Received: 4 February 2016
- Accepted: 20 July 2016
- Published: 2 September 2016
The use of interorganizational, collaborative approaches to build capacity in quality improvement (QI) in health care is showing promise as a useful model for scaling up and accelerating the implementation of interventions that bridge the “know-do” gap to improve clinical care and provider outcomes. Fundamental to a collaborative approach is interorganizational learning whereby organizations acquire, share, and combine knowledge with other organizations and have the opportunity to learn from their respective successes and challenges in improvement areas. This learning approach aims to create the conditions for collaborative, reflective, and innovative experiential systems that enable collective discussions regarding daily practice issues and finding solutions for improvement.
The concepts associated with interorganizational learning and deliberate learning activities within a collaborative ‘Communities-of-practice’(CoP) approach formed the foundation of the of an interactive QI knowledge translation initiative entitled PERFORM KT. Nine teams participated including seven teams from two acute care hospitals, one from a long term care center, and one from a mental health sciences center. Six monthly CoP learning sessions were held and teams, with the support of an assigned mentor, implemented a QI project and monitored their results which were presented at an end of project symposium. 47 individuals participated in either a focus group or a personal interview. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using an iterative content analysis.
Four key themes emerged from the narrative dataset around experiences and perceptions associated with the PERFORM KT initiative: 1) being successful and taking it to other levels by being systematic, structured, and mentored; 2) taking it outside the comfort zone by being exposed to new concepts and learning together; 3) hearing feedback, exchanging stories, and getting new ideas; and 4) having a pragmatic and accommodating approach to apply new learnings in local contexts.
Study findings offer insights into collaborative, inter-organizational CoP learning approaches to build QI capabilities amongst clinicians, staff, and managers. In particular, our study delineates the need to contextualize QI learning by using deliberate learning activities to balance systematic and structured approaches alongside pragmatic and accommodating approaches with expert mentors.
- Quality improvement
- Interorganizational learning
- Communities of practice
The use of interorganizational, collaborative approaches to build capacity in quality improvement (QI) in health care is growing and showing promise as a useful model for scaling up and accelerating interventions that bridge the “know-do” gap to improve aspects of clinical care and provider outcomes [1–9]. Fundamental to a collaborative approach is interorganizational learning whereby organizations acquire, share and combine knowledge with other organizations and have the opportunity to learn from the successes and failures of their peers in improvement areas . This learning approach aims to create the conditions for collaborative, reflective, and innovative experiential systems that enable collective discussions regarding daily practice issues and finding solutions for improvement by integrating tacit-explicit knowledge [9, 10]. Interactive dialogue occurs by including participants in deliberate learning activities around The Model for Improvement, Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) small scale cycles and QI tools  and the application of learning to a QI project, in partnership with a mentor [4–6]. Using deliberate learning activities may enable working teams to absorb new practices and foster a deeper understanding of the practices required to ensure quality care .
The literature relative to the value of using interorganizational, QI collaboratives (QICs) is growing. However, there remains limited understanding as to what factors within the QIC approach are responsible for producing the desired outcomes . Limited empirical knowledge exists on best practices for engaging point-of-care clinicians and non-physician staff in collaborative QI efforts [5, 12].
Further insight into the effectiveness of interorganizational collaborative approaches for QI may emerge from understanding the experiences of those who participate in these approaches. In this context, a qualitative exploration was conducted to elicit the perceptions and experiences of project leads, unit managers, mentors, point-of-care clinicians and staff who participated in the Knowledge Translation of Performance Data for Frontline Nurses and Leaders Initiative (PERFORM KT), an interorganizational, collaborative approach to building capacity for QI.
The concepts associated with interorganizational learning [4–6] and deliberate learning activities  within a collaborative ‘community of practice’(CoP) model formed the foundation of the development, implementation and evaluation of PERFORM KT [10, 13, 14]. Deliberate learning activities generate operational knowledge about how to perform new practices effectively as well as conceptual knowledge about cause-and-effect relationships that make practices effective . Operational and conceptual knowledge together can increase a teams’ absorptive capacity for learning new practices, the ability to change and adapt routines to achieve their goals .
All health-care organizations (n = 10) which had participated in the preceding, related initiative, the National Nurse Quality Report,  were invited to participate in PERFORM KT. Three of the 10 organizations accepted the invitation. Two sent one team each and the third sent three. A fourth organization was invited and sent 4 teams for a total of 9 teams participating in PERFORM KT, 7 teams from two acute care hospitals, 1 from a long term care center located in another province, and 1 from a mental health sciences center.
Pain it Forward on Respirology
Preventing Falls With Intentional Rounding General Surgery/GI/Plastics
Reducing Injuries Related to Falls
Aggressive Behaviour Minimization in Neuropsychiatry
First Line of Defence: Decreasing Medical Adhesive Related Skin Tears in the ICU
Enabling Occupational Engagement Through Management of Agitated Behaviors
Improving level of function with early mobilization for patients with fractures
Falls Prevention Through Improved Inter-professional Communication And Mixed Methodology
Interviewees were recruited from the nine participating teams using the following eligibility criteria: 1) employed at one of the participating units/sites; 2) involved in PERFORM- KT; and 3) able to provide informed consent. An initial e-mail was sent to the point-of-care clinicians and staff, mentors and managers who participated in the initiative to inform them of the evaluation study. PERFORM KT project leaders at the clinical unit level were introduced to the study by a research assistant during one monthly CoP session. Upon completion of their projects, PERFORM KT project leaders were invited to participate in a focus group interview. Data was also collected using one-on-one interviews with point-of-care clinicians and staff, mentors and managers. Research staff used a semi-structured interview guide consisting of a series of open-ended questions to direct and focus the discussion.
Focus groups and individual interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach . Specifically, the principal investigator and two members of the research team independently reviewed each transcript line by line to identify codes from within the text and then met to develop the initial coding schema by consensus. Categories were then constructed to incorporate the codes and the coding schema was refined and reviewed by the principal investigator. An iterative analytical process was used, wherein the initial coding schema was applied to each transcript to further develop and refine themes, subthemes, and subcategories in efforts to capture variant occurrences within the data. Data collection ended when saturation of themes occurred. Throughout the data analysis phase, ongoing discussion among team members ensured that issues were systematically addressed.
Four focus groups were conducted with 17 PERFORM project team participants, with an interview completed with one project team participant who could not attend the focus group. Focus groups 1, 2 and 3 consisted of nurses, while focus group 4 consisted of health disciplines staff. This was to accommodate participant preference to do the focus group at the end of their shift. A further 29 personal interviews were conducted with point-of-care nurses, unit managers and PERFORM team mentors. Demographic data was received from 42 of the 47 participants only. Of the focus group participants, 87 % had been in their role and 60 % had been with their organization for less than 5 years. The completed demographics forms indicate that the focus group participants were comprised of nurses (n = 11), occupational therapists (n = 2), physiotherapists (n = 1), and a unit clerk (n = 1). In addition, individual interviews were conducted with point-of-care nurses on units that were involved in PERFORM KT projects of whom 31 % had been in their current roles and in their organization for less than 5 years, while 36 % had been with their organization and in their roles for more than 20 years. Managers and mentors were more likely to have Masters preparation (80 and 100 %, respectively).
The following four key themes emerged from the narrative dataset around experiences and perceptions associated with the PERFORM KT learning strategy: 1) being successful and taking it to other levels by being systematic, structured, and mentored; 2) taking it outside the comfort zone by being exposed to new concepts and learning together; 3) hearing feedback, exchanging stories, and getting new ideas; and 4) having a pragmatic and accommodating approach to apply new learnings in local contexts.
Being successful and taking it to other levels by being systematic, structured, and mentored
We had a general idea of what we wanted to achieve, but the way it was introduced was that we needed more structure which was provided by PERFORM KT. How to keep everything regimented instead of us just doing whatever we wanted to- making it more of a systematic approach to even just see what the knowledge gaps were. If we had just gone ahead and done it the way we wanted to do it may not have been as successful as what it was. It may not have led to where we’ve taken it now to other areas so presenting it nationally, meeting with directors to take it hospital wide. (Project Leader Focus Group 3)
The cue cards they gave us [were] actually quite helpful when you ask the patient. At least they give you guidance. (Point-of-care Nurse 19)
The little tool they made a piece of paper with the four moments of assessment I think was really beneficial. (Point-of-care Nurse 17)
I would say having their ongoing mentorship was crucial to us having something concrete and meaningful to present today. Even helping us create goals for sustainability moving forward helps us keep grounded so we are not again reaching for those goals that are not really that achievable. (Project Leader Focus Group 4)
The mentors were equally responsive and then sent them information so they feel comfortable and they weren’t struggling and they could break it down for them to really understand. (Manager 1)
I think the mentors really kept them on track in terms of letting them know what was expected before coming to each of the communities of practice. Sort of being able to assign tasks and know that by the next week or the next CoP, this is what you need to have done. (Manager 3)
Taking it outside the comfort zone by being exposed to new concepts and learning together
Make sure you always have two[communities of practice]. So you have the larger community of practice but to have the smaller CoP which was the two of you. I know nurse X has been involved in other QI initiatives, but nurse Y hadn’t had the background with the PDSA cycle. (Project Leader Focus Group 2)
What I picked up on was often we see a problem and want to fix it right away without doing the analysis piece, so I think I learned to more fully appreciate that piece. (Project Leader Focus Group 1)
Outcomes on the unit have been awareness of our issue as an issue, awareness of the QI process and I think, awareness too of organizational and unit goals, so examples of those are awareness of QI, getting people familiar with the idea of surveys and feedback and changing education, and trying again PDSA cycles, so awareness of organizational goals. (Project Leader Focus Group 3)
I found the content of the communities of practice really helpful, the introduction of basic concepts, of fish diagrams, and how to structure, how to breakdown work flow, stuff we are not exposed to. (Project Leader Focus Group 3)
Seeing that we’ve presented twice on the topic, it can give you some confidence to take it outside of our comfort zone. We didn’t meet our aim completely, that’s okay too.” (Project Leader Focus Group 4)
The participants were learning how to do performance improvement and work through their issues, I was learning how to be a mentor. We were all learning how to be mentors. (Mentor 2)
It was a bit scary at the beginning because you don’t want to fail. But they ensured that nobody was going to fail at this and there was always room to continue to grow. (Manager 1).
Hearing feedback, exchanging stories, and getting new ideas
This third theme reflects how participants valued the CoP component of the PERFORM KT learning strategy. Project leaders, mentors and managers described the CoPs as a place to hear feedback, exchange stories of what was working well or not, and ‘get new ideas’ and ‘take on new angles’ on their respective QI projects between participating units and across the hospitals. Specifically, PERFORM KT participants spoke of generating new ideas from other project teams’ suggestions or successes and appreciated new perspectives offered by their peers. For the most part this was informal at the monthly CoPs, however at one CoP, the teams were paired up with another team outside their organization doing a similar project. One team presented their project and the paired team was responsible for giving feedback.
I took notes and “I didn’t think of that”, so I got some new ideas or some new takes on different angles of what we could do back home on our particular project. (Project Leader Focus Group 1)
I think also what was good was the CoP where the teams got to talk with each other and they were able to see where other teams were at, and what challenges they were having and they were able to share their successes and challenges. (Mentor 4)
It was really really nice for our groups to see what the others had done. I don’t know how anybody else felt, but I thought it was a proud moment because we were talking about different things and you got to see what everyone was doing. It was really nice. I loved the Symposium. (Manager 2)
I really enjoyed hearing people’s feedback and what they’ve been going through and some of the challenges that they’ve run into. It’s helpful to know you’re not the only person running though those challenges. (Manager 3)
Having a pragmatic and accommodating approach to apply new learnings in local contexts
You could see the practical value of it and nurses are very pragmatic. (Point-of-care Nurse 13)
They made adjustments based on people’s feedback and followed up. When, and when there was questions about it, there was someone there to answer.” (Point-of-care nurse 5)
They found a time to do the sessions when we are actually not busy. Instead of us accommodating them, they accommodated us which is number one with nursing because when we’re doing nursing care, you can give us a 15 minute session but if they’re calling in the middle of a busy session, it’s not going to get in here.” (Point-of-care Nurse 18)
Our falls prevention, what’s really critical is we have this database now on our falls so we see the changes right away. We know exactly, is what we are doing is it working? We have a review with our staff meeting every week and we review a fall and it involves all the staff giving feedback. It’s automatic involvement and engagement and understanding whether what we’re doing is actually working. (Project Leader Focus Group 2)
If you have ideas, you can enlighten other staff and bring change, so we had a lot of staff curious about the project itself, how you got your funding for it, because they had so many ideas themselves of different QI or research projects that they wanted to find a way to get developed on their units as well. (Project Leader Focus Group 3)
Our study findings provide insight into what participating point-of-care clinicians, staff, unit managers, and mentors perceived to be important active ingredients of the inter-organizational collaborative learning approach to guide their local QI efforts. Collectively our findings add to a small yet important emerging body of evidence that aims to understand the specific features within organizational and system contexts and active ingredients of QI efforts that drive change with point-of-care clinicians and staff to enhance effective and efficient care.
Our study highlights the importance of having a systematic, structured interorganizational collaborative learning approach in concert with being pragmatic and accommodating when applying learnings at the local clinical unit level. This exemplifies the goals of deliberate learning for building QI capabilities for point-of-care clinicians and staff [11, 15]. Of particular relevance for participants were the structured learning modules and resource binders that enabled them to understand and apply key QI, knowledge translation and change management concepts and tools into practice in a timely, adaptable fashion. The key role of a structured approach to QI education has also been previously reported [4, 5, 19]. Part of the structured learning modules included exposing the project leads at the clinical level and the managers to the larger QI and patient safety field or as one participant described “seeing the bigger picture”. This is consistent with a study that found that participation in QI training expanded participants’ QI knowledge and skills and enabled them to put the “pieces of the puzzle” together .
Our finding around the key role of the mentors in working with their assigned teams to provide expertise, keep things on track, and overcome barriers is consistent with other QI education interventions [19–21]. Our study further delineates the role of the mentor as they worked with their assigned teams to initially explore the cause and effect of their respective topic areas using QI tools (e.g. Ishikawa fishbone cause and effect, process mapping) and then apply learnings to their respective local QI projects. In this capacity they served as “sense-makers” as they were able to impart to the teams an understanding of the operational and conceptual knowledge required to perform new practices (applying QI concepts locally and participating in knowledge translation strategies at the end of cycle symposium) effectively. In turn, the teams were able to challenge some of their original assumptions and adapt their focus to achieve their goals and learn to be outside their comfort zone.
Our finding around how participants described the interactive dialogue that took place during the monthly meetings as inspiring, motivating and creative adds support to the value of learning through interorganizational learning [5, 6, 10, 11] and collaborative CoP [13, 14] approaches. By sharing both successes and failures, teams were able to learn valuable dos and don’ts and consider practices that might be worthy of adopting as part of their QI efforts . In our study, participants identified that value of having opportunities to provide and receive both formal, structured and informal feedback. Finally, participants also identified the objective nature of feedback provided by others from outside their institution for example, not feeling they are the only ones dealing with QI issues and the challenges associated with implementing QI projects into local clinical contexts.
Study findings can be used to guide future collaborative, inter-organizational CoP learning approaches to build QI capabilities amongst point-of-care clinicians, staff, and managers. Future educational strategies should consider the balancing of learning to be systematic and structured alongside pragmatic and accommodating depending on the context. Key to this balanced approach is being responsive to learning styles and different perspectives within a safe space for learning . Further, inclusion of expert mentors who serve as “sense makers” and work with point-of-care clinicians, staff, and managers as they move in and out of their comfort zones is paramount. Study findings may also offer insights into the “active ingredients” of collaborative, inter-organizational communities of practice learning approaches to build QI capabilities amongst point-of-care clinicians, staff, and managers.
Further exploration on how best to contextualize learning to improve care within collaborative CoP approaches and examination of outcomes associated with this approach on a larger scale in Canada and beyond is recommended. Future research could build on this empirical work and mixed methods approaches used to evaluate similar QI collaborative efforts - Transforming Care at the Bedside  and the Betty Irene Moore Nursing Initiative . Specifically, multi-national, multi-site research that employs more rigorous experimental designs that include system, professional, organizational, team-based and patient oriented outcomes and experiences are required.
The following limitations need to be taken into consideration when interpreting our study. The first limitation is the potential for social desirability bias from the participants and the self-report nature of the interviews and focus groups. In particular the participating project leaders from the clinical units and unit managers may have been supportive of learning and professional development opportunities. The second limitation is around transferability of findings given that the data was only collected from a small sample size drawing from four healthcare organizations with three in Ontario and one in Manitoba.
Our study findings contribute to the evolving literature around the value of using QI collaboratives;[1–4, 7–9] interorganizational learning [5, 6, 10, 11] and collaborative communities-of-practice [13, 14] to build QI capabilities amongst point-of-care clinicians, staff, and managers. Study findings offer insights into the active ingredients of collaborative, inter-organizational communities of practice learning approaches to build QI capabilities amongst point-of-care clinicians, staff, and managers. Of particular note, our study delineates the need to contextualize QI learning by using deliberate learning activities to balance systematic and structured approaches alongside pragmatic and accommodating approaches with expert mentors. Future studies should be conducted to further explore how best to contextualize learning to improve care within collaborative CoP approaches.
QI, quality improvement; CoP, communities of practice; PERFORM KT, knowledge translation of performance data for frontline nurses and leaders initiative
The authors would like to thank the project leaders, managers, mentors and point-of-care nurses who participated in the PERFORM KT study. We would also like to acknowledge our Research Assistants (Claude Mainville, Patricia Pascua, Maria-Rose La Neve, Jane Yoon, Yonda Lai and Christopher Stewart) for their contribution to data collection and transcription of interviews and focus groups.
We gratefully acknowledge the Province of Ontario for their support of this research through their research grants program. The opinions, results and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect that of the Province.
Availability of data and material
The primary author (LJ) and Principal Investigator 1) made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation of data; 2) drafted the article and revised it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) provided final approval of the version to be published. JMcS, and AI contributed to the data collection, analysis and the manuscript writing. VF, PW, MM, AL, SB-B, LS contributed to the manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
LJ is the inaugural St. Michael’s Hospital Volunteer Association Chair in Nursing Research that focuses on improving patient experience and the health of populations by optimizing health system performance through using data to drive quality care; effective care transitions; and building research capacity for point-of-care clinicians. Through her policy-relevant and productive research program and leadership roles, she continues to generate and disseminate and translate knowledge that informs practice and policy and mentor students and colleagues with a focus on: 1) generating and translating evidence to enhance quality care, organizational learning, and health system performance and 2) leveraging nurses’ key role in care coordination and service delivery and patient/caregiver engagement to ensure quality care transitions outcomes and experiences and In recognition of her research expertise, she serves as the associate editor of the Journal of Nursing Care Quality, and editorial advisory board member of The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. LJ was inducted as a Fellow into the American Academy of Nurses in October 2015 and received the Sigma Theta Tau International Dorothy M. Pringle Award for Excellence in Research.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Participants were informed as part of the written consent process that they would be audio-taped and study findings would be published in academic and peer-reviewed journals.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Research Ethics Board (REB) approval was obtained from the 2 acute care sites (St. Michael’s Hospital and University Health Network) while the long-term care and mental health sites accepted REB approval from the main site (REB #14-421). Written informed consent was obtained from participants before conducting the focus groups or interviews.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(26):2725–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dixon-Woods M, Bosk CL, Aveling EL, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Explaining Michigan: Developing an Ex Post Theory of a QIProgram. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2):167–205.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Leff B, Spragens LH, Morano B, Powell J, Bickert T, Bond C, et al. Rapid reengineering of acute medical care for medicare beneficiaries: the medicare innovations collaborative. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(6):1204–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nadeem E, Olin S, Campbell Hill L, Eaton Hoagwood K, McCue HS. Understanding components of QI collaboratives: A systematic literature review. Milbank Q. 2013;91(20):354–94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Nembhard IM. Learning and improving in QI collaboratives: which collaborative features do participants value most? Health Serv Res. 2009;44(2 Pt 1):359–78.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Nembhard IM. All Teach, All Learn, All Improve? The Role of Interorganizational Learning in QI Collaboratives. Health Care Manage Rev. 2012;37(2):154–64.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- O’Connor P. QIcollaboratives in the age of health informatics-new wine in new wineskins. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:891–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Schouten LM, Hulscher ME, van Everdingen JJ, Huijsman R, Grol RP. Evidence for the impact of QIcollaboratives: systematic review. BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1491–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Needleman J, Pearson ML, Upenieks VV, Yee T, Wolstein J, Parkerton M. Engaging frontline staff in performance improvement: the American Organisation of Nurse Executives implementation of Transforming Care at the Bedside Collaborative. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016;42:61–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Orlikowski WJ. Knowing In practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organ Sci. 2002;13(3):249–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nembhard IM, Tucker AL. Deliberate Learning to Improve Performance in Dynamic Service Settings: Evidence from Hospital Intensive Care Units. Organ Sci. 2011;22(4):907–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pannich S, Sevdalis N, Athanasiou T. Beyond clinical engagement: a pragmatic model for QI interventions, aligning clinical and managerial priorities. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004453.Google Scholar
- Wenger E. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization. 2000;7(2):225–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wenger E, McDermott RA, Snyder WC. Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 2002.Google Scholar
- Mukherjee AS, Lapré MA, Van Wassenhove LN. Knowledge driven quality improvement. Manag Sci. 1998;44(11, Part 2):35–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jeffs L, Nincic V, White P, Hayes L, Lo J. Leveraging Data to Transform Nursing Care: Insights from Nurse Leaders. J Nurs Care Qual. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 25489660 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Google Scholar
- Jeffs L, Doran D, VanDeVelde-Coke S, Mainville C, Hayes L, Lamont L, Boal AS. Implementation of the National Nursing Quality Report Initiative in Canada: Insights from Pilot Participants. J Nurs Care Qual. [Epub ahead of print] PMID:25851073 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Google Scholar
- Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Daughtery JD, Blake SC, Kohler SS, Culler SD, Hawley JN, Rask KJ. QI training: experiences of frontline staff. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2011;26(7):627–41.Google Scholar
- Cunningham FC, Ranmuthugala G, Plumb J, et al. Health professional networks as a vector for improving healthcare quality and safety: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:239–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jeffs L, Abramovich IA, Hayes C, Smith O, Tregunno D, Chan W, Reeves S. Implementing an Interprofessional Patient Safety Learning Initiative: Insights from Participants, Project Leads and Steering Committee Members. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;0:1–8. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001720.Google Scholar
- Blake SC, Kohler SS, Culler SD, Hawley J, Rask KJ. Designing effective healthcare QI training programs: perceptions of nursing and other senior leaders. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2013;3(5):66–77.Google Scholar
- Sharpe M. Engaging front-line nurses to improve the outcomes of patients, 2006–13. Health Aff. 2015;34(20):2196–201.View ArticleGoogle Scholar