90 likes | 166 Views
The search for internal validity in improvement. Frank Davidoff Learning Lab – 2013 IHI Forum. Improvement has a two-part mantra. Part 1: All improvement involves change Part 2: Not all change is improvement. Local project, part 1: make change.
E N D
The search for internal validity in improvement Frank Davidoff Learning Lab – 2013 IHI Forum
Improvement has a two-part mantra • Part 1: • All improvement involves change • Part 2: • Not all change is improvement
Local project, part 1: make change • “Here’s how we made (system-level) change happen…” • Identified a dysfunction in the system • Came up with an innovation (better process; change strategy for getting there) • Implemented our strategy in local context • Used small tests of change to refine innovation • Spread and maintained changes • (Way different from giving a pill…) • So what’s next?
Local project, part 2: find out whether change is improvement • “Here’s how we learned whether our change was improvement…” • Chose outcomes: processes, patients’ clinical condition • Developed outcome measures • Created informal systems for collecting, displaying, using outcomes data (quantitative, qualitative) • Used these data locally to study the impact of changes, modify change strategy
Yes, Virginia, there is “study” in local improvement projects • Informal study is an inherent part of all meaningful improvement • Used to check on impact of change (“Did it work?”) • Especially visible in “Plan-Do-Study-Act” cycles (originally called “Plan-Do-Check-Act” cycles) • Not related to whether project is meant “for publication”
Where have we gotten in our local project? • In part 1: we made change happen • In part 2: we produced informal outcomes data to demonstrate improvement • Good enough: allows project staff to modify, spread, maintain change • BUT data quality (completeness, accuracy) is uncertain; no control for confounders, biases – “lite” study data • Result: weak internal validity! • i.e., unlikely to convince skeptics elsewhere about improvement
How can we strengthen the evidence? • Shift “up” to formal planning and study • Identify plausible theory of performance change • Adopt specific study design • Select/define relevant outcomes • Develop reliable data collection process, robust data quality control • Analyze results (e.g., grounded theory; statistics; time series, esp. statistical process control) • Creates “research level” data • Result: stronger internal validity! • i.e., more likely to convince editors, peer reviewers, rest of the world – that our change was really an improvement
Summing up • Making changelocallyincludes informal study of outcomes • Useful: makes project possible – but data somewhat “fuzzy” • Result: Internal validity is weak • Formal study of change process and outcome requires “research level” methods • Scholarly: contributes to general knowledge • Not every formal study feature is required, but the more features the better • Result: internal validity is stronger
Internal validity in improvement studies:key reference • Solberg L, et al. The three faces of performance measurement: improvement, accountability, and research. Joint Comm J Qual Improvement 1997;23:135-47.