Skip to main content

Table 6 Consensus and dissensus between the P&P and the Professional groups on PHARE-M perceived performance and QT effectiveness

From: Lessons from patient and parent involvement (P&PI) in a quality improvement program in cystic fibrosis care in France

PHARE-M performance
QT effectiveness
Consensus amongst P&P No consensus amongst P&P
Consensus amongst Professionals Experience on the QT:  
(++) Satisfied with my experience as a member of the QT
(++) Wish to remain on a similar team working on QI
QI work done by the QT:
(++) Usefulness of the work done by the quality team in improving care
(++) QI work meets the organization’s needs
(++) An ongoing quality improvement process has to be maintained to continuously improve care at the centre
Mastery of PHARE-M method and tools:
(++) A clear vision of the area to focus the improvement efforts on
(++) A guide for organizing the QI work
(++) Ability to implement changes
(++) Ability to analyze data to ensure changes were improvements
(++) Need to set up a specific data collection for QI work
No consensus amongst Professionals   Mastery of PHARE-M method and tools:
(NC,NC) Ability of the QT to analyze variations in processes over a period of time
(NC,NC) Availability in routine of data to analyze and identify problems
(NC,NC) Availability of routine data collection to follow the implementation of the new processes of care
Change Management (PDSA cycles):
(NC,NC) Ability to conduct tests of changes with PDSA cycles and learn from the results
(NC,NC) Support from the other hospital departments to conduct changes