Table 2

Staff opinions on the MEER approach and its impact. The first post-intervention survey was conducted at the mid-way point in the first review of the five standards (2.5 months; 28 responses); the second was conducted after all five standards had been reviewed for the first time (5 months; 39 responses); the final survey was conducted after the intervention, after all five standards had been reviewed for the second time (10 months; 31 responses).

Agree/strongly agree
2.5 months
5 months
10 months
AI have enjoyed the team-based discussions89%92%90%
BI like the process of reviewing the standards using the map-based graphical representations in the MEERQAT tool79%82%84%
CI have enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on my own clinical practice89%95%94%
DI have felt comfortable expressing my views and opinions in the team-based discussions93%92%87%
EI have found hearing the different perspectives among my colleagues to be worthwhile96%100%97%
FI have learnt new information about the national quality standards86%95%97%
GI have learnt new information about specific Epworth policies and protocols82%97%97%
HI have volunteered to assist with some of the specific improvement actions identified in the project
(I was involved in QI activities in the 12 months before the project commenced)
Somewhat/greatly increased
2.5 months
5 months
10 months
IHow would you compare your level of interest in quality issues and quality improvement now to before your first MEERQAT session?72%87%84%
Since the project commenced…2.5 months
5 months
10 months
JStaff within my ward/unit are generally more aware of quality67%80%91%
KThere are more informal discussions about the quality standards in our ward/unit67%66%81%
LThere have been some notable improvements in practice among all staff in our ward/unit41%68%88%
  • MEER, map-enabled experiential review; QI, quality improvement.