PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10159234

Using evaluation research methods to improve quality.

Abstract

The idea of evaluation, or the measurement of a person, a service or a programme against some type of yardstick, has been around for a long time. In everyday language, the term evaluation is used to refer to everything from employee performance appraisal, to informal opinions about whether a particular service appears to be working well, to carefully planned and executed programmes of evaluation. In the past, librarians have tended to rely on their own professional judgement as a primary means of informal evaluation, and as long as the librarian was considered competent by others in the organization, this method seemed to work reasonably well. In the rapidly changing fiscal climate of the 1990s, greater demands for accountability are altering the standards of evaluation, and informal methods based on professional judgement are less and less likely to be seen as adequate. Formal evaluation is becoming even more important as management strategies, such as total quality management (TQM) and continuous quality improvement (CQI), are adopted--strategies that rely on gathering and using data for measuring service quality. Although programme jargon such as TQM and CQI may change in the future, it is likely that the evaluation process inherent in these approaches will continue to be an important management tool for deciding on the allocation of scarce resources.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J G Marshall. 1995. Using evaluation research methods to improve quality.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2532.1995.1230159.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Investing in Canada's nursing workforce: a comprehensive review to inform policy innovations and directions.

BACKGROUND: Health systems worldwide face persistent health workers challenges including nursing shortages, workforce strain, and inequities. In Canada, these challenges have prompted renewed national and provincial reforms to strengthen recruitment, retention, leadership, and sustainability. This paper compares nursing workforce policy directions across Canada, and international jurisdictions to inform policy and planning. METHODS: A cross-country comparative analysis of policies building on a comprehensive national funded review that included an umbrella review of 69 systematic reviews, a comparative policy review of nursing workforce strategies in five jurisdictions, and validation through national horizon-scanning and policy dialogues (n >100). Evidence was analyzed across system, organizational, and individual levels. RESULTS: At the system level, international jurisdictions demonstrate comprehensive, legislated approaches integrating data, governance, and multi-year funding have advanced key nursing strategies. In Canada, the advances show the importance of strategies to have national and provincial/territorial alignment emphasizing leadership, flexibility, and inclusion as key levers. Organizational and individual-level reforms such as mentorship, leadership development, and wellness initiatives are expanding but remain variably evaluated. Experts identified national workforce data strategies and policy integration with embedded evaluation as key enablers to inform scalability and sustainability of implemented strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Canada's nursing workforce reforms are advancing toward coordinated, equity-driven, and evidence-informed strategies. Continued investment in evaluation, leadership, and national integrated data systems along with integrating nursing workforce planning within broader intersectoral planning will consolidate these gains and position Canada as an international leader in sustainable nursing workforce policy.

Canada↗