Q is an initiative, led by the Health Foundation and supported by NHS England, designed to connect people skilled in quality improvement across the UK. The Q founding cohort comprised 231 members who attended three two-day 'design events'. We carried out an embedded evaluation of the first phase of Q, to look at both the success of the design process and the potential for success for Q, while providing continuous findings to the Q project team.

An evaluation of the first phase of Q

Engaging the founding cohort in a co-designed approach to health care improvement

Bryn Garrod, Josephine Exley, Emma Harte, Celine Miani, Jennifer Newbould, Catherine L. Saunders, Tom Ling

ResearchPublished May 9, 2016

Background

Q is an initiative, led by the Health Foundation and supported by NHS England, designed to connect people skilled in quality improvement across the UK. The Q founding cohort comprised 231 members who attended three two-day 'design events'. We carried out an independent, embedded evaluation of the first phase of Q, to look at both the success of the design process and the potential for success for Q, while providing continuous findings to the Q project team.

Methods

The evaluation used a multi-method approach, including a social network analysis and a novel method that we have called 'citizen ethnography'. Evaluation team members attended fortnightly project team meetings and design events.

Findings

Q founding cohort members came from a variety of backgrounds. The size of the founding cohort caused difficulties with the co-design of Q. At the end of the year, members were much more connected with each other. Less progress was made with the design of Q than might have been possible, but members were enthusiastic about Q's potential success and determined to help it achieve its goals.

Conclusions

Q is a promising approach to a critical problem currently facing health and care in the UK. The first phase was successful in building good will and loyalty amongst the founding cohort. Q's success depends on individual components that the Q project team and founding cohort have designed in outline but whose details are still being fleshed out. Q remains unproven but has the potential to bring significant benefits.

Key Findings

Context

Q members reported a range of views on what quality improvement is, what the barriers to its effectiveness are, and what they expect from Q.

Members conceptualised quality improvement as a spectrum from a mind set to a discipline in its own right. Members reported that they face significant barriers in implementing quality improvement, principally lack of time and financial constraints. Interviewees were optimistic that there was benefit to be gained from the creation of a national initiative.

Implementation of a co-design process

The size of the founding cohort made co-design challenging but catalysed member buy-in.

The large size of the cohort limited the extent to which all members could engage in the co-design process. Members felt that the events were well organised and that the products and brand were of high quality. The levels of commitment and loyalty expressed by most Q members interviewed at the end of the process were high.

Mechanisms of change

Q has connected founding cohort members.

Members provided a multitude of positive examples of the beneficial impact that participating in the Q founding cohort had had on the 'connecting' and 'developing' strands of the central part of the theory of change.

Outcomes

Q is a promising but unproven initiative.

Q founding cohort members and project team members agreed that Q did not make as much progress during the first phase as might have been hoped. The vast majority of interviewees stated that they would like to remain involved with Q in some capacity.

Recommendations

Next phase of Q:

  • Focus early on bringing substance to Q's features.
  • Make clear the relationship between leadership and membership.
  • Avoid confusion over the recruitment strategy for members.
  • Stick with the current theory of change for now.
  • Harness diversity through a shared core of values supporting a wide variety of activities.
  • Transition from a formative to a summative evaluation.

Future initiatives similar to Q:

  • Be clear about the founding cohort's role and recruit accordingly.
  • Ensure that events and activities fit within an overall vision.
  • Make sure that accountability and processes for decisionmaking are clear.
  • Maintain the strengths of Q.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Garrod, Bryn, Josephine Exley, Emma Harte, Celine Miani, Jennifer Newbould, Catherine L. Saunders, and Tom Ling, An evaluation of the first phase of Q: Engaging the founding cohort in a co-designed approach to health care improvement, RAND Corporation, RR-1517-THF, 2016. As of October 13, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1517.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Garrod, Bryn, Josephine Exley, Emma Harte, Celine Miani, Jennifer Newbould, Catherine L. Saunders, and Tom Ling, An evaluation of the first phase of Q: Engaging the founding cohort in a co-designed approach to health care improvement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1517.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared for the Health Foundation and conducted by RAND Europe.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND 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.