ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2016
Exploration of contextual factors in a successful quality improvement collaborative in English ambulance services: cross-sectional survey.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving stroke care and the facilitators and barriers to their implementation: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2021Pooled it
- Location-independent leadership: managers' experiences leading prehospital emergency care in Sweden - a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: a realist review.Systematic reviews · 2020Review
- Article
- Article
- Exploration of contextual factors in a successful quality improvement collaborative in English ambulance services: cross-sectional survey.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesClinical leadership and organizational culture are important contextual factors for quality improvement (QI) but the relationship between these and with organizational change is complex and poorly understood. We aimed to explore the relationship between clinical leadership, culture of innovation and clinical engagement in QI within a national ambulance QI Collaborative (QIC).
methodsWe used a self-administered online questionnaire survey sent to front-line clinicians in all 12 English ambulance services. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of quantitative data and qualitative analysis of free-text responses.
resultsThere were 2743 (12% of 22 117) responses from 11 of the 12 participating ambulance services. In the 3% of responders that were directly involved with the QIC, leadership behaviour was significantly higher than for those not directly involved. QIC involvement made no significant difference to responders' perceptions of the culture of innovation in their organization, which was generally considered poor. Although uptake of QI methods was low overall, QIC members were significantly more likely to use QI methods, which were also significantly associated with leadership behaviour.
conclusionsDespite a limited organizational culture of innovation, clinical leadership and use of QI methods in ambulance services generally, the QIC achieved its aims to significantly improve pre-hospital care for acute myocardial infarction and stroke. We postulate that this was mediated through an improvement subculture, linked to the QIC, which facilitated large-scale improvement by stimulating leadership and QI methods. Further research is needed to understand success factors for QI in complex health care environments.
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.