ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2014
How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Enhancing capability for continuous organisational improvement and learning in healthcare organisations: a systematic review of the literature 2013-2022.BMJ open quality · 2024Pooled it
- The effectiveness of continuous quality improvement for developing professional practice and improving health care outcomes: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review of approaches to improve practice, detection and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use in primary health care: a role for continuous quality improvement.BMC family practice · 2020Pooled it
- Spread tools: a systematic review of components, uptake, and effectiveness of quality improvement toolkits.Implementation science : IS · 2019Pooled it
- A Continuous Quality Improvement Intervention to Improve Antenatal HIV Care Testing in Rural South Africa: Evaluation of Implementation in a Real-World Setting.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Trial
- Effects of service-wide support on regularity of alcohol screening of clients in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services: a cluster randomised trial.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Adapting the Grog survey app for alcohol screening and feedback in aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services: a mixed methods study protocol.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2025Article
- Characteristics of Quality Improvement Projects in Health Services: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Using Dashboards to Support Continuous Quality Improvement in Undergraduate and Graduate Medical Education.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the use of social network analysis methods in process improvement within healthcare organizations: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Decreasing Patient Visit Length at a Student-Run Free Clinic via a Continuous Quality Improvement Project.Cureus · 2024Article
- A scoping review of continuous quality improvement in healthcare system: conceptualization, models and tools, barriers and facilitators, and impact.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Decision-maker roles in healthcare quality improvement projects: a scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Moving fromJournal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Caring for high-need patients.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- FORWARD: Building a Model to Hold Schools of Public Health Accountable for Antiracism Work.American journal of public health · 2023Article
- Patient handoffs and multi-specialty trainee perspectives across an institution: informing recommendations for health systems and an expanded conceptual framework for handoffs.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Disseminating online parenting resources in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned.Journal of community psychology · 2022Article
- Improving curriculum delivery: Using a results informed quality improvement model for teen behavioral health education.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveContinuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are foundational approaches to improving healthcare delivery. Publications using the term CQI, however, are methodologically heterogeneous, and labels other than CQI are used to signify relevant approaches. Standards for identifying the use of CQI based on its key methodological features could enable more effective learning across quality improvement (QI) efforts. The objective was to identify essential methodological features for recognizing CQI.
designPrevious work with a 12-member international expert panel identified reliably abstracted CQI methodological features. We tested which features met rigorous a priori standards as essential features of CQI using a three-phase online modified-Delphi process.
settingPrimarily United States and Canada.
participants119 QI experts randomly assigned into four on-line panels.
interventionParticipants rated CQI features and discussed their answers using online, anonymous and asynchronous discussion boards. We analyzed ratings quantitatively and discussion threads qualitatively. Main outcome measure(s) Panel consensus on definitional CQI features.
results/st> Seventy-nine (66%) panelists completed the process. Thirty-three completers self-identified as QI researchers, 18 as QI practitioners and 28 as both equally. The features 'systematic data guided activities,' 'designing with local conditions in mind' and 'iterative development and testing' met a priori standards as essential CQI features. Qualitative analyses showed cross-cutting themes focused on differences between QI and CQI.
conclusionsWe found consensus among a broad group of CQI researchers and practitioners on three features as essential for identifying QI work more specifically as 'CQI.' All three features are needed as a minimum standard for recognizing CQI methods.
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.