Abstract
This paper reviews and critiques the different approaches to the use of narrative in quality improvement research. The defining characteristics of narrative are chronology (unfolding over time); emplotment (the literary juxtaposing of actions and events in an implicitly causal sequence); trouble (that is, harm or the risk of harm); and embeddedness (the personal story nests within a particular social, historical and organisational context). Stories are about purposeful action unfolding in the face of trouble and, as such, have much to offer quality improvement researchers. But the quality improvement report (a story about efforts to implement change), which is common, must be distinguished carefully from narrative based quality improvement research (focused systematic enquiry that uses narrative methods to generate new knowledge), which is currently none. We distinguish four approaches to the use of narrative in quality improvement research—narrative interview; naturalistic story gathering; organisational case study; and collective sense-making—and offer a rationale, describe how data can be collected and analysed, and discuss the strengths and limitations of each using examples from the quality improvement literature. Narrative research raises epistemological questions about the nature of narrative truth (characterised by sense-making and emotional impact rather than scientific objectivity), which has implications for how rigour should be defined (and how it might be achieved) in this type of research. We offer some provisional guidance for distinguishing high quality narrative research in a quality improvement setting from other forms of narrative account such as report, anecdote, and journalism.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (87.5 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Casarett D., Karlawish J. H., Sugarman J. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA. 2000 May 3;283(17):2275–2280. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.17.2275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davidoff F., Batalden P. Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Oct;14(5):319–325. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.014787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Elwyn Glyn, Hocking Paul, Burtonwood Ann, Harry Karan, Turner Arthur. Learning to plan? A critical fiction about the facilitation of professional and practice development plans in primary care. J Interprof Care. 2002 Nov;16(4):349–358. doi: 10.1080/1356182021000008274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Horsburgh Dorothy. Evaluation of qualitative research. J Clin Nurs. 2003 Mar;12(2):307–312. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00683.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lynn J. When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Feb;13(1):67–70. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2002.002436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moss F., Thompson R. A new structure for quality improvement reports. Qual Health Care. 1999 Jun;8(2):76–76. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.2.76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Murray Scott A., Boyd Kirsty, Kendall Marilyn, Worth Allison, Benton T. Fred, Clausen Hans. Dying of lung cancer or cardiac failure: prospective qualitative interview study of patients and their carers in the community. BMJ. 2002 Oct 26;325(7370):929–929. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7370.929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thor Johan, Wittlöv Karin, Herrlin Bo, Brommels Mats, Svensson Olle, Skår John, Øvretveit John. Learning helpers: how they facilitated improvement and improved facilitation--lessons from a hospital-wide quality improvement initiative. Qual Manag Health Care. 2004 Jan-Mar;13(1):60–74. doi: 10.1097/00019514-200401000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]