Potential: Social-cognitive resources available to agents (Individual intentions & Collective commitment) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | AR (IR) | SrA | ↑↓ | LOS (ΔLOS) | Qualitative data |
Hospital 1 | 75% (10%) | 88% | ↑17 ↓5 | (6.0d) (−3.1d) | • Willingness to change was present, team wanted to improve further • Quality improvement is considered important within hospital • CP development is team effort, with collective goals • CP development aligned with hospital strategy, higher management decided to join the project |
Hospital 2 | 65% (22%) | 60% | ↑18 ↓3 | 8.2d (− 4.2d) | • Improvement team was motivated • Motivation hampered by conflicting priorities • Identifiable collective reason to start project • CP development aligned with hospital strategy, higher management decided to join the project |
Hospital 8 | 47% (−13%) | 71% | ↑6 ↓9 | 10.3d (−4.4d) | • Little motivation and collective commitment • Certification, external pressure as leverage for CP development • Conflict of views on quality: administrative vs clinical approach • CP development not aligned with hospital strategy, middle management decided to join the project |
Hospital 9 | 54% (−3%) | 72% | ↑13 ↓6 | 10.2d (2.1d) | • Lacking shared goals and commitment • External pressure provides leverage for CP development • Management not involved, quality improvement as ‘part of the job’ • CP development not aligned with hospital strategy, team decided to join the project |
Hospital 10 | 64% (−5%) | 64% | ↑7 ↓8 | 18.8d (1.8d) | • Feedback of the pre-test data acted as trigger, team intrinsically motivated • Quality improvement perceived as important part of the job, project as opportunity to update local protocols, benchmark and learn • CP development is a team effort, with shared ambitions, but more so on the ward where medical champion worked • Little to no support by management, and different views on quality between management and clinicians • CP development is not aligned with hospital strategy, middle management decided to join the project |