Limits...
The eCollaborative: using a quality improvement collaborative to implement the National eHealth Record System in Australian primary care practices.

Knight AW, Szucs C, Dhillon M, Lembke T, Mitchell C - Int J Qual Health Care (2014)

Bottom Line: The collaborative methodology was adapted for implementing innovation and proved useful for engaging with multiple small practices, facilitating low-risk testing of processes, sharing ideas among participants, development of clinical champions and development of resources to support wider use.Data quality was a key challenge for this innovation, and quality measures chosen require development.Patient participants were partners in improvement.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of NSW, Fairfield, NSW, Australia The Improvement Foundation, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Show MeSH
Number of SHSs uploaded.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4126615&req=5

MZU059F4: Number of SHSs uploaded.

Mentions: Nine hundred and twenty-nine patients registered to participate in the project. Six hundred and fifty SHSs were submitted as indicated in Fig. 4. There were 519 patient ‘views’ of records. Four hundred and twenty-one PDSA cycles were submitted, which is an average of 7.6 per participating practice.Figure 4


The eCollaborative: using a quality improvement collaborative to implement the National eHealth Record System in Australian primary care practices.

Knight AW, Szucs C, Dhillon M, Lembke T, Mitchell C - Int J Qual Health Care (2014)

Number of SHSs uploaded.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4126615&req=5

MZU059F4: Number of SHSs uploaded.
Mentions: Nine hundred and twenty-nine patients registered to participate in the project. Six hundred and fifty SHSs were submitted as indicated in Fig. 4. There were 519 patient ‘views’ of records. Four hundred and twenty-one PDSA cycles were submitted, which is an average of 7.6 per participating practice.Figure 4

Bottom Line: The collaborative methodology was adapted for implementing innovation and proved useful for engaging with multiple small practices, facilitating low-risk testing of processes, sharing ideas among participants, development of clinical champions and development of resources to support wider use.Data quality was a key challenge for this innovation, and quality measures chosen require development.Patient participants were partners in improvement.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of NSW, Fairfield, NSW, Australia The Improvement Foundation, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Show MeSH