ArticleQuality & safety in health care2004
Influencing sceptical staff to become supporters of service improvement: a qualitative study of doctors' and managers' views.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The utility of website-based quality improvement tools for health professionals: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Pooled it
- Older Black and Hispanic Patient Perceptions of Medicare Annual Wellness Visits: A Qualitative Study.Annals of family medicine · 2026Article
- A Quality Improvement Project on Optimising Intravenous Maintenance Fluid Prescribing in Surgical Patients.Cureus · 2025Article
- Increasing the use of perioperative risk scoring in emergency laparotomy: nationwide quality improvement programme.BJS open · 2022Article
- What can be learnt from a qualitative evaluation of implementing a rapid sexual health testing, diagnosis and treatment service?BMJ open · 2021Article
- A Realist Evaluation of Team Interventions in Acute Hospital Contexts-Use of Two Case Studies to Test Initial Programme Theories.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Improving mealtimes for patients and staff within an eating disorder unit: understanding of the problem and first intervention during the pandemic-an initial report.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- An implementation history of primary health care transformation: Alberta's primary care networks and the people, time and culture of change.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- A mobile methods pilot study of surgical spaces: 'fit for purpose? Organisational productivity and workforce wellbeing in workspaces in hospital' (FLOURISH).BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Enabling change in public health services: Insights from the implementation of nurse mentoring interventions to improve quality of obstetric and newborn care in two North Indian states.Gates open research · 2020Article
- No Need to Worry? Anxiety and Coping in the Entrepreneurship Process.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Article
- Quality planning for impactful improvement: a mixed methods review.BMJ open quality · 2019Review
- Planning and implementing sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Article
- Healthcare Quality Improvement and 'work engagement'; concluding results from a national, longitudinal, cross-sectional study of the 'Productive Ward-Releasing Time to Care' Programme.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- The role of embedded research in quality improvement: a narrative review.BMJ quality & safety · 2017Review
- Sustainability of the integrated chronic disease management model at primary care clinics in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2016Article
- Ontario's emergency department process improvement program: the experience of implementation.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2015Article
- Achieving provider engagement: providers' perceptions of implementing and delivering integrated care.Qualitative health research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore scepticism and resistance towards changes in working practice designed to achieve service improvement. Two principal questions were studied: (1). why some people are sceptical or resistant towards improvement programmes and (2). what influences them to change their minds.
methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 clinicians and 19 managers who held national and regional roles in two national programmes of service improvement within the NHS involving systematic organisational changes in working practices: the National Booking Programme and the Cancer Services Collaborative (now the Cancer Services Collaborative Improvement Partnership).
resultsScepticism and resistance exist in all staff groups, especially among medical staff. Reasons include personal reluctance to change, misunderstanding of the aims of improvement programmes, and a dislike of the methods by which programmes have been promoted. Sceptical staff can be influenced to become involved in improvement, but this usually takes time. Newly won support may be fragile, requiring ongoing evidence of benefits to be maintained.
conclusionsThe support of health service staff, particularly doctors, is crucial to the spread and sustainability of the modernisation agenda. Scepticism and resistance are seen to hamper progress. Leaders of improvement initiatives need to recognise the impact of scepticism and resistance, and to consider ways in which staff can become positively engaged in change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.