Trial reportBMJ quality & safety2013
Competition in collaborative clothing: a qualitative case study of influences on collaborative quality improvement in the ICU.
Trial report in BMJ quality & safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- An integrative perspective on interorganizational multilevel healthcare networks: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- How and under what circumstances do quality improvement collaboratives lead to better outcomes? A systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Telemedicine with clinical decision support for critical care: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Effect of a quality improvement program on weaning from mechanical ventilation: a cluster randomized trial.Intensive care medicine · 2015Trial
- Clinicians' experience of providing care: a rapid review.BMC health services research · 2020Review
- Variation in Implementation and Outcomes of Early Extubation Practices After Infant Cardiac Surgery.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2019Article
- Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature.BMJ quality & safety · 2016Article
- Improving health care quality and safety: the role of collective learning.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2015Review
- How collaborative are quality improvement collaboratives: a qualitative study in stroke care.Implementation science : IS · 2014Article
- Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit--a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiorganisational quality improvement (QI) collaborative networks are promoted for improving quality within healthcare. Recently, several large-scale QI initiatives have been conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) environment with successful quantitative results. However, the mechanisms through which such networks lead to QI success remain uncertain. We aim to understand ICU staff perspectives on collaborative QI based on involvement in a multiorganisational improvement network and hypothesise about theoretical constructs that might explain the effect of collaboration in such networks.
methodsQualitative study using a modified grounded theory approach. Key informant interviews were conducted with staff from 12 community hospital ICUs that participated in a cluster randomized control trial (RCT) of a QI intervention using a collaborative approach between 2006 and 2008. Data analysis followed the standard procedure for grounded theory using constant comparative methodology.
resultsThe collaborative network was perceived to promote increased intrateam cooperation over interorganisational cooperation, but friendly competition with other ICUs appeared to be a prominent driver of behaviour change. Bedsides, clinicians reported that belonging to a collaborative network provided recognition for the high-quality patient care that they already provided. However, the existing communication structure was perceived to be ineffective for staff engagement since it was based on a hierarchical approach to knowledge transfer and project awareness.
conclusionsQI collaborative networks may promote behaviour change by improving intrateam communication, fostering competition with other institutions, and increasing recognition for providing high-quality care. Other commonly held assumptions about their potential impact, for instance, increasing interorganisational legitimisation, communication and collaboration, may be less important.
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.