How to specify healthcare process improvements collaboratively using rapid, remote consensus-building

Published in


A five-step framework

This paper features a five-step framework to help develop process improvements – the changes needed to make a healthcare process better. Grounded in a participatory ethos, principles of crowd-sourcing, and consensus-building methods, the five steps are:

  1. Define scope and objective of the process improvement
  2. Produce a draft or prototype of the proposed process improvement
  3. Identify participant recruitment strategy
  4. Design and conduct a remote consensus-building exercise
  5. Produce a final specification of the process improvements in light of learning from the exercise

A case study to illustrate the framework

We applied the five steps of the framework to a case study to adapt clinical processes for managing obstetric emergencies for COVID scenarios. Over 100 participants working in maternity care, infection prevention and control, or human factors took part in a fast-paced project. They started by making recommendations for improving processes they saw illustrated in a short video. Following consensus-building, 16 recommendations for improvement emerged on which there was high agreement. These recommendations were used to inform the specification of process improvements for managing the obstetric emergency and to develop supporting resources, including an updated video and infographic resources.

This framework supports building processes rapidly and at scale in a highly participatory way. It mobilises the ingenuity and knowledge of participants, enabling inclusion of diverse forms of expertise that might not be available in any one unit. It is rich in potential for use beyond this particular example. We are excited about the possibilities this framework raises:

We will continue to test the framework in future projects, so that we can further refine for what kinds of applications it works best for and where its limits lie.

Read the article

Find out more about the methodology

Framework for rapid, participatory, remote consensus-building for process improvement specification

With thanks to

Authorship Group with participants: Amanda Andrews, Rita Arya, Sarah F. Bell, Denise Chaffer, Andrew Cooney, Rachel Corry, Mair G.P. Davies, Lisa Duffy, Caroline Everden, Theresa Fitzpatrick, Courtney Grant, Mark Hellaby, Tracey A. Herlihey, Sue Hignett, Sarah Hookes, Fran R. Ives, Gyuchan T. Jun, Owen J. Marsh, Tanya R. Matthews, Celine McKeown, Alexandra Merriman, Giulia Miles, Susan Millward, Neil Muchatata, David Newton, Valerie G. Noble, Pamela Page, Vincent Pargade, Sharon P. Pickering, Laura Pickup, Dale Richards, Cerys Scarr, Jyoti Sidhu, James Stevenson, Ben Tipney, Stephen Tipper, Jo Wailling, Susan P. Whalley-Lloyd, Christian Wilhelm, & Juliet J. Wood.

This project is supported by the PROMPT Maternity Foundation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association, Each Baby Counts, and the Infection Prevention Society.

Licensed under Creative Commons

These symbols show that the contents of this page are published under a Creative Commons licence called CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0.

It means that you’re free to reuse this work. In fact, we encourage it. We want our research to reach people who can help improve quality and safety in healthcare. But we do have a few rules:

  • Make sure you acknowledge The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute) as the creator and link back to this webpage.
  • You can’t sell this work for a fee, or use it for any activity that generates revenue without our permission.
  • Please don’t distribute a modified version to others without our permission.

You can read the fine print about the licence on the Creative Commons website. It’s meant to help us keep the integrity of our work and stay true to our values.

But ultimately we want our work to have impact. So if you’ve got a use in mind but you’re not sure it’s allowed, just ask us at