Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27655272›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2016

Impact of peer-led quality improvement networks on quality of inpatient mental health care: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Lina Aimola, Sarah Jasim, Neeraj Tripathi, Sarah Tucker, Adrian Worrall, Alan Quirk, Mike J Crawford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Lina AimolaCollege Centre for Quality Improvement, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot St, London, E1 8BB, London, UK. Lina.aimola@rcpsych.ac.uk.
Sarah JasimCentre for Mental Health, Hammersmith Campus, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Commonwealth Building, Du Cane Road, W12 0NN, London, UK.
Neeraj TripathiSouthview Low Secure Unit, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, The Drive, Hellingly, Hailsham, BN27 4ER, East Sussex, UK.
Sarah TuckerAssociation of Group and Individual Psychotherapy, 1 Fairbridge Road, N19 3EW, London, UK.
Adrian WorrallCollege Centre for Quality Improvement, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot St, London, E1 8BB, London, UK.
Alan QuirkCollege Centre for Quality Improvement, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot St, London, E1 8BB, London, UK.
Mike J CrawfordCollege Centre for Quality Improvement, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot St, London, E1 8BB, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality improvement networks are peer-led programmes in which members of the network assess the quality of care colleagues provide according to agreed standards of practice. These networks aim to help members identify areas of service provision that could be improved and share good practice. Despite the widespread use of peer-led quality improvement networks, there is very little information about their impact. We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial of a quality improvement network for low-secure mental health wards to examine the impact of membership on the process and outcomes of care over a 12 month period.

methodsStandalone low secure units in England and Wales that expressed an interest in joining the quality improvement network were recruited for the study from 2012 to 2014. Thirty-eight units were randomly allocated to either the active intervention (participation in the network n = 18) or a control arm (delayed participation in the network n = 20). Using a 5 % significance level and 90 % power, it was calculated that a sample size of 60 wards was required taking into account a 10 % drop out. A total of 75 wards were assessed at baseline and 8 wards dropped out the study before the data collection at follow up. Researchers masked to the allocation status of the units assessed all study outcomes at baseline and follow-up 12 months later. The primary outcome is the quality of the physical environment and facilities on the wards. The secondary outcomes are: safety of the ward, patient-rated satisfaction with care and mental well-being, staff burnout, training and supervision. Relative to control wards, it is hypothesized that the quality of the physical environment and facilities will be higher on wards in the active arm of the trial 12 months after randomization. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized evaluation of a peer-led quality improvement network that has examined the impact of participation on both patient-level and service-level outcomes. The study has the potential to help shape future efforts to improve the quality of inpatient care.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN79614916 . Retrospectively registered 28 March 2014].

Indexed as

Forensic mental healthPeer-reviewQuality networksRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID27655272
PMCPMC5031290

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.