Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24671120›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2014

Deepening our understanding of quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE): overview of a study of hospital quality management in seven countries.

Mariona Secanell, Oliver Groene, Onyebuchi A Arah, Maria Andrée Lopez, Basia Kutryba, Holger Pfaff, Niek Klazinga, Cordula Wagner, Solvejg Kristensen, Paul Daniel Bartels and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Conceptualizing and assessing improvement capability: a review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2017
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Mariona SecanellAvedis Donabedian Reseach Institute, University Autonomous of Barcelona, C/Provenza 293, Pral. 08037 Barcelona, Spain. marionasecanell@gmail.com.
Oliver Groene
Onyebuchi A Arah
Maria Andrée Lopez
Basia Kutryba
Holger Pfaff
Niek Klazinga
Cordula Wagner
Solvejg Kristensen
Paul Daniel Bartels
Pascal Garel
Charles Bruneau
Ana Escoval
Margarida França
Nuria Mora
Rosa Suñol
DUQuE Project Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

objectiveThis paper provides an overview of the DUQuE (Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe) project, the first study across multiple countries of the European Union (EU) to assess relationships between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The paper describes the conceptual framework and methods applied, highlighting the novel features of this study.

designDUQuE was designed as a multi-level cross-sectional study with data collection at hospital, pathway, professional and patient level in eight countries. SETTING AND

participantsWe aimed to collect data for the assessment of hospital-wide constructs from up to 30 randomly selected hospitals in each country, and additional data at pathway and patient level in 12 of these 30.

main outcome measuresA comprehensive conceptual framework was developed to account for the multiple levels that influence hospital performance and patient outcomes. We assessed hospital-specific constructs (organizational culture and professional involvement), clinical pathway constructs (the organization of care processes for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries), patient-specific processes and outcomes (clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience) and external constructs that could modify hospital quality (external assessment and perceived external pressure).

resultsData was gathered from 188 hospitals in 7 participating countries. The overall participation and response rate were between 75% and 100% for the assessed measures.

conclusionsThis is the first study assessing relation between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The study involved a large number of respondents and achieved high response rates. This work will serve to develop guidance in how to assess quality management and makes recommendations on the best ways to improve quality in healthcare for hospital stakeholders, payers, researchers, and policy makers throughout the EU.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ImprovementResearch DesignCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeHospitalsSurveys and Questionnairesclinical effectivenessclinical indicatorscross-national researchhospitalspatient outcomesquality management systemsquality of healthcare

Identifiers

PMID24671120
PMCPMC4001699

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.