Incorporating Evidence Review Into Quality Improvement

Meeting the Needs of Innovators

Published In: BMJ Quality & Safety, v. 22, no. 11, Nov. 2013, p. 931-939

Posted on on January 01, 2013

by Marjorie Danz, Susanne Hempel, Yee-Wei Lim, Roberta M. Shanman, Aneesa Motala, Susan Stockdale, Paul G. Shekelle, Lisa V. Rubenstein

Read More

Access further information on this document at BMJ Quality & Safety

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND: Achieving quality improvement (QI) aims often requires local innovation. Without objective evidence review, innovators may miss previously tested approaches, rely on biased information, or use personal preferences in designing and implementing local QI programmes. AIM: To develop a practical, responsive approach to evidence review for QI innovations aimed at both achieving the goals of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and developing an evidence-based QI culture. DESIGN: Descriptive organisational case report. METHODS: As part of a QI initiative to develop and spread innovations for achieving the Veterans Affairs (VA) PCMH (termed Patient Aligned Care Team, or PACT), we involved a professional evidence review team (consisting of review experts, an experienced librarian, and administrative support) in responding to the evidence needs of front-line primary care innovators. The review team developed a systematic approach to responsive innovation evidence review (RIER) that focused on innovator needs in terms of time frame, type of evidence and method of communicating results. To assess uptake and usefulness of the RIERs, and to learn how the content and process could be improved, we surveyed innovation leaders. RESULTS: In the first 16 months of the QI initiative, we produced 13 RIERs on a variety of topics. These were presented as 6–15-page summaries and as slides at a QI collaborative. The RIERs focused on innovator needs (eg, topic overviews, how innovations are carried out, or contextual factors relevant to implementation). All 17 innovators who responded to the survey had read at least one RIER; 50% rated the reviews as very useful and 31%, as probably useful. CONCLUSIONS: These responsive evidence reviews appear to be a promising approach to integrating evidence review into QI processes.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.