Please wait...
Close

This site uses cookies. You can read how we use them in our cookie policy.

Model for Understanding Success In Quality

Guidance/background

Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire.

If you wish to, you can 'Save' this survey at any time and come back to complete it later.

If you have any queries regarding the completion of this questionnaire or any aspect of Model for Understanding Success In Quality then please contact the support team:

PQIP Team on 020 7092 1577

pqip@rcoa.ac.uk

Case ID:


Model for Understanding Success In Quality

This questionnaire will help you and your QI team evaluate your 'context' for driving improvement - i.e. whether the environment is right for successful QI. It assesses aspects of context at multiple levels including your QI team, Microsystem, QI Support Infrastructure, Organization, Environment, and Other aspects.

On each of the following pages, a series of questions is listed on left hand side. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement by typing the appropriate response (number 1-7) in the indicated cell.

For example:
Selecting the radio button with a value of '4' will mean you neither agree not disagree. Selecting the radio button with a value of '1' will mean you totally disagree

The final tab gives your score for each contextual factor in MUSIQ. A higher score (max=7) for a contextual factor indicates that your context is likely to be supportive for this feature.
A lower score (min=1) indicates that this is an area you may want to address before or during your QI project.

QI Team

(For the following questions please answer on a scale 7-1, where 7 = 'Totally agree', 4 = Neither agree or disagree and 1 = 'Totally disagree')

1.
Most members of our QI team have worked on improvement projects before
2.
The QI team members have diverse professional backgrounds and experiences
3.
There is a physician actively participating on this QI team
4.
At least one member of the QI team is an authority on the outcome, process, or system being changed in this project
5.
The QI team leader is an ongoing "presence" in this team--someone who is readily available1
6.
Most members of my QI Team have a chance to participate in decision making2
7.
We appreciate and build on our individual differences2
8.
The contribution of every group member is listened to and considered2
9.
Our QI team applies enough knowledge and skill to get the work done well2
10.
We like to consider a lot of different ideas before making a decision2
11.
Our QI team works hard enough to get the task done well2
12.
QI team members agree on the projects overall goals2
13.
The overall goals of the project guide the activities of QI project team members2
14.
Members of my QI team behave as they are expected to2
15.
All of the QI project team members are committed to the same project goals2
16.
Our QI team effectively uses improvement methods (e.g., Plan-Do-Study-Act [PDSA] cycles, run charts, control charts) to make changes
17.
Members of our QI team were familiar with each other before they began working on this QI project
 

Reference:
1Edmondson A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Adm Sci Q 1999, 44(2):350-383
2Lemieux-Charles L, Murray M, Baker GR, Barnsley J, Tasa K, Ibrahim SA. The effects of quality improvement practices on team effectiveness: A mediational model. J Organ Behav 2002, 23(5):533
 
Page 1 of 8

Microsystem

(For the following questions please answer on a scale 7-1, where 7 = 'Totally agree', 4 = Neither agree or disagree and 1 = 'Totally disagree')

18.
Microsystem leaders personally facilitate this QI project
19.
The microsystem values teamwork, communication, and a commitment to quality improvement
20.
Microsystem staff who are not members of the QI team are effective at using QI methods for change
21.
Microsystem staff who are not members of the QI team have a strong desire to improve performance in the area of focus of this QI project
Page 2 of 8

QI Support

(For the following questions please answer on a scale 7-1, where 7 = 'Totally agree', 4 = Neither agree or disagree and 1 = 'Totally disagree')

22.
Existing information systems allow us to easily pull data specifically needed for this QI project
23.
Our QI team has adequate financial support, resources, and time to meet the aims of this QI project
Page 3 of 8

Organization

(For the following questions please answer on a scale 7-1, where 7 = 'Totally agree', 4 = Neither agree or disagree and 1 = 'Totally disagree')

25.
The senior executives in my organization are directly involved in quality improvement activities
26.
At least one specific senior executive in my organization specifically supports this QI project
27.
This organization places no value on quality improvement
28.
Quality improvement is thoroughly integrated in this organization
29.
Staff are given education and training in how to identify and act on quality improvement opportunities1
30.
Staff are given education and training in statistical and other quantitative methods that support quality improvement1
31.
Staff are given the needed education and training to improve job skills and performance1
32.
Staff are rewarded and recognized (e.g., financially and/or otherwise) for improving quality1
33.
This QI project is directly aligned with the organization's key strategic goals
 
Reference:1
RAND, Improving Chronic Illness Care Evaluation. Healthcare Organization Survey for Quality Management Director,
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/health/projects/icice/ pdfs/qmd.pdf
Shortell SM, Levin DZ, O'Brien JL, Hughes EF. Assessing the evidence on CQI: is the glass half empty or half full? Hosp Health services Adm 1995, 40(1):4-24
 
Page 4 of 8

Environment

(For the following questions please answer on a scale 7-1, where 7 = 'Totally agree', 4 = Neither agree or disagree and 1 = 'Totally disagree')

34.
Pressures or incentives outside my organization this specific QI project
35.
Groups external to my organization (e.g., associations, institutes, collaboratives) provide important personnel, money, resources, or training in support of this QI project
Page 5 of 8

Other

36.
A specific event prompted the launch of this QI project
Page 6 of 8

Your site

A.
Please let us know which site you are located at
Page 7 of 8

Totals

168 Highest possible MUSIQ score
120-168 Project has a reasonable chance of success
80-119 Project could be successful, but possible contextual barriers
50-79 Project has serious contextual issues and is not set up for
success
25-49 Project should not continue as is; consider deploying
resources to other improvement activities
24 Lowest Possible MUSIQ Score when all questions are answered
1 Lowest Possible MUSIQ Score (Questions recorded as "don't
know" or "N/A")
External Motivators
External Project Sponsorship
Organizational QI Leadership
Organization Senior Leader Sponsor
Organization QI Culture
Organization QI Maturity
QI Workforce Focus
Resource Availability
Data Infrastructure
QI Team Leadership
QI Team Diversity
QI Team Subject Matter Expert
QI Team Decision-Making Processes
QI Team Norms
QI Team QI Skill
QI Team Physician Involvement
QI Team Prior QI Experience
QI Team Tenure
Microsystem QI Leadership
Microsystem Motivation
Microsystem QI Capability
Microsystem QI Culture
Task Strategic Importance to the Organization
Triggering Event
Total
Page 8 of 8