title: How collaborative are quality improvement collaboratives: a qualitative study in stroke care.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) continue to be widely used, yet evidence for their effectiveness is equivocal. We sought to explain what happened in Stroke 90:10, a QIC designed to improve stroke care in 24 hospitals in the North West of England. Our study drew in part on the literature on collective action and inter-organizational collaboration. This literature has been relatively neglected in evaluations of QICs, even though they are founded on principles of co-operation and sharing.
  
  
  METHODS
  We interviewed 32 professionals in hospitals that participated in Stroke 90:10, conducted a focus group with the QIC faculty team, and reviewed purposively sampled documents including reports and newsletters. Analysis was based on a modified form of Framework Analysis, combining sensitizing constructs derived from the literature and new, empirically derived thematic categories.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Improvements in stroke care were attributed to QIC participation by many professionals. They described how the QIC fostered a sense of community and increased attention to stroke care within their organizations. However, participants' experiences of the QIC varied. Starting positions were different; some organizations were achieving higher levels of performance than others before the QIC began, and some had more pre-existing experience of quality improvement methods. Some participants had more to learn, others more to teach. Some evidence of free-riding was found. Benchmarking improvement was variously experienced as friendly rivalry or as time-consuming and stressful. Participants' competitive desire to demonstrate success sometimes conflicted with collaborative aims; some experienced competing organizational pressures or saw the QIC as duplication of effort. Experiences of inter-organizational collaboration were influenced by variations in intra-organizational support.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Collaboration is not the only mode of behavior likely to occur within a QIC. Our study revealed a mixed picture of collaboration, free-riding and competition. QICs should learn from work on the challenges of collective action; set realistic goals; account for context; ensure sufficient time and resources are made available; and carefully manage the collaborative to mitigate the risks of collaborative inertia and unhelpful competitive or anti-cooperative behaviors. Individual organizations should assess the costs and benefits of collaboration as a means of attaining quality improvement.
authors.forename: Pam
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Carter
authors.forename: Piotr
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Ozieranski
authors.forename: Sarah
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: McNicol
authors.forename: Maxine
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Power
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP, UK. md11@le.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Mary
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Dixon-Woods
mesh_terms: D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D004739:England; D006801:Humans; D036301:Qualitative Research; D058996:Quality Improvement / Q000592:standards*; D020521:Stroke / Q000628:therapy*