To read this content please select one of the options below:

Perceptions of changes in practice following peer review in the National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project

Carol Rivas (Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK)
Stephanie Taylor (Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK)
Stephen Abbott (School of Community and Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK)
Aileen Clarke (Health Sciences Research Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK)
Chris Griffiths (Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK)
C. Michael Roberts (The Clinical Standards Department, The Royal College of Physicians, London, UK)
Robert Stone (The Clinical Standards Department, The Royal College of Physicians, London, UK)

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

ISSN: 0952-6862

Article publication date: 3 February 2012

332

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceptions of local service change and concepts of change amongst participants in a UK nationwide randomised controlled trial of informal, structured, reciprocated, multidisciplinary peer review with feedback to promote quality improvement: the National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project (NCROP).

Design/methodology/approach

The paper takes the form of a qualitative study, involving semi‐structured interviews with 43 hospital respiratory consultants, nurses and general managers at 24 intervention and 11 control NCROP sites. Thematic analysis resulted in adoption of Joss and Kogan's quality indicators as an analytic framework.

Findings

The paper finds that peer review was associated with positive changes, which may lead to sustained service improvement. Differences existed in perceptions of change among clinicians and between clinicians and managers. “Generic changes” (e.g. changes in interpersonal relations or cultural changes), were often not perceived as change.

Research limitations/implications

The study highlights the significance of generic change in evaluations of change processes. Most participants were clinicians limiting inter‐professional comparisons. Some clinical staff failed to recognise changes they accomplished or their significance, perceiving change differently to others within their professional group. These findings have implications for policy and research. They should be considered when developing frameworks for assessing quality improvements and staff engagement with change.

Originality/value

This is the first qualitative study exploring participants' experience of peer review for quality improvement in healthcare. The study adds to previous research into UK health service improvement, which has had a more restricted focus on inter‐professional differences.

Keywords

Citation

Rivas, C., Taylor, S., Abbott, S., Clarke, A., Griffiths, C., Roberts, C.M. and Stone, R. (2012), "Perceptions of changes in practice following peer review in the National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526861211198263

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2012, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles