Note that a technical review by a limited number of people will be performed to ensure that the submission is complete, that the core project team is appropriate, and that the budget is sufficiently described. If a proposal passes this initial review, the proposal will be submitted to peer review using the criteria below.

Content Review

1. Aims, Background, and Approach

a. Do the aims utilize SMART goal attributes (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely)?

b. Does the proposal explicitly and, where possible, quantifiably justify the problem selection, i.e. describe the magnitude of the problem and establish its importance to the diagnostic process?

c. Does the proposal clearly address the importance of addressing this problem locally and for the nation-at-large?

d. Does the proposed intervention address the problem’s root causes and is relevant supporting literature is referenced? If an international location, is the applicability of the intervention to the US health system is evident?

2. Project Plan

a. Is the population receiving the intervention clearly specified and consistent with the aims?

b. Are the project plan and time allotted for planning, implementing (or testing), evaluating, and improving the intervention reasonable and appropriate?

c. Are the chosen measures of effectiveness as they relate to the desired outcomes adequately described?

d. Is method for evaluation is sufficient for determining the project’s impact?

e. Are operational resources adequately described such as IT or other operational support, if any, from non-core team members who will be involved in implementing the intervention?

f. Are major milestones, including deliverables in all phases (pre-intervention, intervention/testing, and evaluation/improvement) reasonable, timely and appropriate?

g. Is access to needed data readily accessible at the start of intervention implementation or is there a plan for ensuring access to all required data not readily available adequately described.

3. Organizational Rationale (assessed in preliminary review)

a. Does the project team include members who have appropriate training and/or experience in quality improvement to meet the established Aims?

b. Does the identified core project team exemplify an interdisciplinary approach and address the skills, competencies, and authority needed to execute the project plan?

c. Is there meaningful patient or family involvement in this project, or where deemed to add no value, is that position justified?

4. Risks and risk mitigation

a. Does the proposal describe the potential unintended negative consequences and are the balancing measures that will be used to evaluate those negative consequences are appropriate?

b.Does the proposal describe other potential project operational challenges and/or barriers and how appropriate are the strategies to address them?

5. Overall, general impression

Is this proposal consistent with the intent of the Seed Grant Program and would it contribute to the broader healthcare field and the science of safety in diagnostic medicine?

Each organization selected will be expected to:

• Attend a cohort kick-off webinar

• Assure appropriate team members are actively engaged in the QI Project Core Team

• Demonstrate ongoing leadership commitment by an Executive Sponsor

• Submit bi-monthly status reports

• Submit formal six-month mid-project and year-end final reports

• Participate in quarterly calls

• Participate in the online community

• Attend two annual QI Summits and SIDM annual conferences

• Ensure the IRB is aware of the proposed project, if required by your organization, and appropriate authorization is obtained prior to the start of the project.

• SIDM will provide a community for grantees to:
  • Support shared learning across sites as challenges and barriers are identified by individual QI teams
  • Allow participating sites to share documents and engage with the SIDM QI Program Manager who will act as a virtual improvement advisor to the community for the lifecycle of the program.
• Two QI Summits to be held mid-way and at the end of the Cohort year will provide an opportunity for the grantees to present status reports on their projects and obtain feedback from other grantees, peer judges, members of SIDM’s Board, Performance Improvement Committee and Grant Review Committee.

• Educational webinars on QI techniques applied to the diagnostic field will be made available as needed

• Limited consultative support will be made available through ad hoc calls to help grantees overcome potential QI barriers