Impact of Clinical Process Improvement Training in an Integrated Delivery System.

Multiple integrated health systems use frontline staff training in quality and process improvement, although the optimal method to determine training success remains unknown. The authors assessed the Partners Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program's short-term impact by evaluating data in project presentations during 14 courses between 2010 and 2016. Long-term impact was assessed via a graduate survey. Among 262 interprofessional teams, 180 (69%) achieved short-term improvement, including 78 (30%) achieving and 102 (39%) demonstrating improvement toward their project goal. Projects implementing ≥2 interventions were more likely to succeed. Of 231 graduates surveyed, 79% reported the ability to lead and 67% reported actual work on additional quality improvement projects. Ninety-seven percent of alumni reported a positive career impact. Hospital leadership support of clinical process improvement training meets short-term improvement needs and promotes long-term capacity for learning health systems.

Quality Improvement Training in a Variety of Cancer Care Delivery Settings: Experiences From a Comprehensive Cancer Center, an Academic Medical Center, and Community Practices.

PURPOSE: Training clinical and supportive staff in quality improvement (QI) theory and use of QI tools has the potential to improve oncology care delivery. We report our combined experience of providing training to oncologists in a variety of local settings and assess the effect of the training on individual participants and for institutions. METHODS: Multidisciplinary oncology teams at a comprehensive cancer center, an academic medical center, and community practices were led through experiential QI training that spanned several months. The curriculum included didactic training sessions that attendees applied to their local project-based work and that required plan-do-study-act cycles. The curriculum was adapted to the smaller practice setting through use of a workbook and a reduced focus on quantitative methods. All teams were supported by coaches and provided final presentations to leadership. The self-rated abilities of trainees to use 15 QI tools were assessed with a pre/post training survey that had five response categories (information, skill, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom). Local institutional and external project presentations were tracked. RESULTS: During 7 years, 129 trainees participated in 56 QI projects. All of the 15 QI tools had 80% of trainees rate themselves in the top three categories (knowledge, understanding, and wisdom) after the training; none met this threshold before. Multiple projects were presented in institutional and external settings. Most projects targeted three of the four domains of the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative certification program standards. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented and sustained QI training programs in a variety of cancer delivery settings. The flexible training model should be easily adoptable by others.