Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19188460›Full record

ArticleQuality & safety in health care2009

Differentiating between hospitals according to the "maturity" of quality improvement systems: a new classification scheme in a sample of European hospitals.

M J M H Lombarts, I Rupp, P Vallejo, N S Klazinga, R Suñol

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. DUQuE quality management measures: associations between quality management at hospital and pathway levels.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2014
    Article
  8. Is having quality as an item on the executive board agenda associated with the implementation of quality management systems in European hospitals: a quantitative analysis.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2014
    Article
  9. Development and validation of an index to assess hospital quality management systems.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2014
    Article
  10. Deepening our understanding of quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE): overview of a study of hospital quality management in seven countries.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2014
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Impact of quality strategies on hospital outputs.Quality & safety in health care · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M J M H LombartsAcademic Medical Center, Department of Social Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, the Netherlands. M.J.Lombarts@amc.uva.nl
I Rupp
P Vallejo
N S Klazinga
R Suñol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study, part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) research project focusing on cross-border patients in Europe, investigated quality policies and improvement in healthcare systems across the European Union (EU). The aim was to develop a classification scheme for the level of quality improvement (maturity) in EU hospitals, in order to evaluate hospitals according to the maturity of their quality improvement activities.

methodsA web-based questionnaire survey designed to measure quality improvement in EU hospitals was used as the basis for the classification scheme. Items included for the development of an evaluation tool--the maturity index--were considered important contributors to quality improvement. The four-stage quality cycle (plan, do, check and act) was used to determine the level of maturity of the various items. Psychometric properties of the classification scheme were assessed, and validation analyses were performed.

resultsA total of 389 hospitals participated in a questionnaire survey; response rates varied by country. For a final sample of 349 hospitals, it was possible to construct a quality improvement maturity index which consisted of seven domains and 113 items. The results of independent analyses sustained the validity of the index, which was useful in differentiating between hospitals in the research sample according to the maturity of their quality improvement system (defined as the total of all quality improvement activities). DISCUSSION: Further research is recommended to develop an instrument which for use in the future as a practical tool to evaluate the maturity of hospital quality improvement systems.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesEuropeHealth Care SurveysHealth Plan ImplementationHospitalsHumansInformed ConsentPatient-Centered CarePatient RightsQuality Assurance, Health CareSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID19188460
PMCPMC2629850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.