An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 4. One size does not fit all

This is the final article in the series on the epistemology of patient safety research, and considers the selection of study design and end points during the planning of an evaluation. The key message of this series is that “one size does not fit all”: the nature of the evaluation will depend on logistical and pragmatic constraints, a priori assessment of the probability of benefits and harms, the plausible scale of these effects and the target audience for the results. This paper also discusses the advantages of mixed method designs. The strength of any conclusions can be increased if different end points concur and the authors therefore advocate assessment of the effect of the intervention on different end points across the generic causal chain linking structure, process and outcome. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods is also advocated to help explain findings, generate theory and help contextualise results. We show how a bayesian framework can be used to synthesise evidence from a number of different sources and why this approach may be particularly appropriate for the evaluation of patient safety interventions.

[1]  K Wheatley,et al.  Large-scale randomized evidence: trials and overviews. , 2008 .

[2]  T. Lancet The traditional white coat: goodbye, or au revoir? , 2007, The Lancet.

[3]  R. Thomson,et al.  Qualitative methods in a randomised controlled trial: the role of an integrated qualitative process evaluation in providing evidence to discontinue the intervention in one arm of a trial of a decision support tool , 2007, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[4]  Alan J Girling,et al.  Modeling payback from research into the efficacy of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[5]  Elizabeth Allen,et al.  Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Lloyd S. Nelson,et al.  Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them) , 2005 .

[7]  Richard J. Lilford,et al.  Reconciling the Quantitative and Qualitative Traditions—The Bayesian Approach , 2003 .

[8]  Richard Lilford,et al.  Action research: a way of researching or a way of managing? , 2003, Journal of health services research & policy.

[9]  Keith R Abrams,et al.  Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence , 2002, The Lancet.

[10]  R. Lilford,et al.  The Leeds University Maternity Audit Project. , 2002, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[11]  M Sandelowski,et al.  Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. , 2000, Research in nursing & health.

[12]  R J Lilford,et al.  Decision analysis and the implementation of research findings , 1998, BMJ.

[13]  J. Wyatt,et al.  On‐screen computer reminders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes , 1998 .

[14]  G Mosser,et al.  The three faces of performance measurement: improvement, accountability, and research. , 1997, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[15]  A. Rosser Oxford textbook of medicine (3rd edn) , 1996 .

[16]  R J Lilford,et al.  For Debate: The statistical basis of public policy: a paradigm shift is overdue , 1996, BMJ.

[17]  J M Grimshaw,et al.  Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. , 1994, Lancet.

[18]  R J Lilford,et al.  Effect of using protocols on medical care: randomised trial of three methods of taking an antenatal history. , 1992, BMJ.

[19]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[20]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[21]  T. Cook,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research , 1981 .