METHODS: Prospective, mixed-methods process evaluation to answer the following: (1) how was the collaborative delivered by the faculty and received, understood and enacted by the participants; (2) what influenced teams' ability to improve care for patients requiring emergency cholecystectomy? We collected and analysed a range of data including field notes, ethnographic observations of meetings, and project documentation. Analysis was based on the framework approach, informed by Normalisation Process Theory, and involved the creation of comparative case studies based on hospital performance during the project.
RESULTS: Chole-QuIC was delivered as planned and was well received and understood by participants. Four hospitals were identified as highly successful, based upon a substantial increase in the number of patients having surgery in line with national guidance. Conversely, four hospitals were identified as challenged, achieving no significant improvement. The comparative analysis indicate that six inter-related influences appeared most associated with improvement: (1) achieving clarity of purpose amongst site leads and key stakeholders; (2) capacity to lead and effective project support; (3) ideas to action; (4) learning from own and others' experience; (5) creating additional capacity to do emergency cholecystectomies; and (6) coordinating/managing the patient pathway.
CONCLUSION: Collaborative-based quality improvement is a viable strategy for emergency surgery but success requires the deployment of effective clinical strategies in conjunction with improvement strategies. In particular, achieving clarity of purpose about proposed changes amongst key stakeholders was a vital precursor to improvement, enabling the creation of additional surgical capacity and new pathways to be implemented effectively. Protected time, testing ideas, and the ability to learn quickly from data and experience were associated with greater impact within this cohort.
DESIGN: The Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to ensure rigorous and transparent identification of literature and interpretation.
SETTING: Kenya and developing countries with similar contexts.
PARTICIPANTS: The review included forty-five documents (peer-reviewed articles and grey literature) that reported on MNG in developing countries.
RESULTS: We acknowledge that MNG is a complex and evolving determinant of better nutrition outcomes. The paper highlights challenges Kenya and other developing countries face such as inadequate leadership, inadequate coordination, insufficient capacity, inadequate monitoring and evaluation systems, and limited financial resources, among others. For Kenya in particular, there is inadequate understanding of what MNG is and how it can be effectively operationalised and tracked.
CONCLUSIONS: To enhance understanding of MNG in Kenya, a country-specific assessment of MNG processes and impact outcomes using standard tools and defined metrics is vital. Such assessment will generate evidence of progress, successes, and challenges that will compel the government and stakeholders to invest more in multisectoral nutrition approaches to achieve its nutrition goals.
METHOD: A model was formulated by extending an existing generic knowledge management systems success model by including organisational and system factors relevant to healthcare. It was tested by using data obtained from 263 doctors working within two district health boards in New Zealand.
RESULTS: Of the system factors, knowledge content quality was found to be particularly important for knowledge management systems success. Of the organisational factors, leadership was the most important, and more important than incentives.
CONCLUSION: Leadership promoted knowledge management systems success primarily by positively affecting knowledge content quality. Leadership also promoted knowledge management use for retrieval, which should lead to the use of that better quality knowledge by the doctors, ultimately resulting in better outcomes for patients.
METHODS: The research question was formulated using the most valid SPIDER technique for a comprehensive search. PubMed, Google Scholar, and PsycNet databases were searched. 19 articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria out of 775 articles.
RESULTS: Thematic analyses show that personality assessment in the military is done to a) detect psychopathology, b) detect aberrant responses, c) recruit new personnel, d) predict training and performance outcomes, and e) predict leadership. The research contributes to the body of knowledge by showing an integrated picture of the most widely used assessment tools and the purpose it serves.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to develop assessment measures that are culture free and can assess more complex personality attributes.