Skip to main content
Article
Quality Improvement Engagement and Competence: A Comparison Between Frontline Nurses and Nurse Leaders
Nursing Outlook
  • Dana Tschannen, University of Michigan
  • Catherine Alexander, San Francisco VA Medical Center
  • Sarah Taylor, University of Michigan Health System, Trauma Burn ICU
  • Elizabeth Tovar, University of Kentucky College of Nursing, Lexington
  • Bidisha Ghosh, University of Michigan
  • Cindy Zellefrow, The Ohio State University
  • Kerry A. Milner, Sacred Heart University
Document Type
Peer-Reviewed Article
Publication Date
9-1-2021
Disciplines
Abstract

Background

Nurses play a pivotal role in improving patient care. To maximize nurses’ impact on quality, nurses must have quality improvement (QI) competence and engage fully in QI initiatives. Purpose

To describe QI competence (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) among frontline nurses and leaders; and compare variations in competence among nursing roles, experience, and specialty areas. Methods

A total of 681 nurses at one heath system fully completed the Nursing Quality Improvement Practice tool electronically. Findings

Half of the respondents reported QI engagement (53.6%). Mean knowledge scores were 5.08 (SD 1.16, 7 items). Skill proficiency was low (M = 2.82, SD = 1.03; range 1–6) although QI attitudes were favorable (M = 3.76, SD = 0.63; range 1–5). Significant differences in skills and attitudes were identified by role. QI competence among nurses employed in various specialty areas were similar. Discussion

Strategies for increasing QI competence and engagement of nurses must be created and deployed in order to improve quality and safety.

Comments

Available online 11 May 2021.

DOI
10.1016/j.outlook.2021.02.008
PMID
33993986
Publisher
Elsevier
Pages
P836-847
Citation Information

Tschannen, D., Alexander, C., Taylor, S., Tovar, E. G., Ghosh, B., Zellefrow, C., & Milner, K. A. (2021). Quality improvement engagement and competence: A comparison between frontline nurses and nurse leaders. Nursing Outlook, 69(5), P836-847. Doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2021.02.008