ArticleBMJ quality & safety2013
Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators.
Article 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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spread tools: a systematic review of components, uptake, and effectiveness of quality improvement toolkits.Implementation science : IS · 2019Pooled it
- Practice context affects efforts to improve diabetes care for primary care patients: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Operationalizing a learning health system: A self-assessment tool for interprofessional teams.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Enhancing early functional independence following cardiac surgery: a quality improvement programme.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Effectiveness and Reach of the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) Pilot Study: a Qualitative Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Observational
- Empowering Implementation Teams with a Learning Health System Approach: Leveraging Data to Improve Quality of Care for Transient Ischemic Attack.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Assessing fidelity to evidence-based quality improvement as an implementation strategy for patient-centered medical home transformation in the Veterans Health Administration.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
- Sequelae of an Evidence-based Approach to Management for Access to Care in the Veterans Health Administration.Medical care · 2019Article
- Identifying Research Gaps and Prioritizing Psychological Health Evidence Synthesis Needs.Medical care · 2019Article
- Long-term impact of evidence-based quality improvement for facilitating medical home implementation on primary care health professional morale.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Improving health care quality and safety: the role of collective learning.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2015Review
- A patient-centered primary care practice approach using evidence-based quality improvement: rationale, methods, and early assessment of implementation.Journal of general internal medicine · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving quality improvement (QI) aims often requires local innovation. Without objective evidence review, innovators may miss previously tested approaches, rely on biased information, or use personal preferences in designing and implementing local QI programmes.
aimTo develop a practical, responsive approach to evidence review for QI innovations aimed at both achieving the goals of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and developing an evidence-based QI culture.
designDescriptive organisational case report.
methodsAs part of a QI initiative to develop and spread innovations for achieving the Veterans Affairs (VA) PCMH (termed Patient Aligned Care Team, or PACT), we involved a professional evidence review team (consisting of review experts, an experienced librarian, and administrative support) in responding to the evidence needs of front-line primary care innovators. The review team developed a systematic approach to responsive innovation evidence review (RIER) that focused on innovator needs in terms of time frame, type of evidence and method of communicating results. To assess uptake and usefulness of the RIERs, and to learn how the content and process could be improved, we surveyed innovation leaders.
resultsIn the first 16 months of the QI initiative, we produced 13 RIERs on a variety of topics. These were presented as 6-15-page summaries and as slides at a QI collaborative. The RIERs focused on innovator needs (eg, topic overviews, how innovations are carried out, or contextual factors relevant to implementation). All 17 innovators who responded to the survey had read at least one RIER; 50% rated the reviews as very useful and 31%, as probably useful.
conclusionsThese responsive evidence reviews appear to be a promising approach to integrating evidence review into QI processes.
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.