Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28289467›Full record

ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2017

The development of a consensus definition for healthcare improvement science (HIS) in seven European countries: A consensus methods approach.

Brigita Skela-Savič, Rhoda Macrae, Manuel Lillo-Crespo, Kevin D Rooney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2017. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Mapping the Status of Healthcare Improvement Science through a Narrative Review in Six European Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Review
  6. 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

4 authors.

Brigita Skela-SavičFaculty of Health Care Jesenice, Spodnji Plavž 3, 4270 Jesenice, Slovenia.
Rhoda MacraeInstitute of Care and Practice Improvement, School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, ML3OBA, Scotland.
Manuel Lillo-CrespoFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Alicante, Spain, Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig s/n 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain.
Kevin D RooneyInstitute of Care and Practice Improvement, School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, ML3OBA, Scotland; Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Corsebar Road, Paisley, PA2 9PN, Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is a limited body of research in the field of healthcare improvement science (HIS). Quality improvement and 'change making' should become an intrinsic part of everyone's job, every day in all parts of the healthcare system. The lack of theoretical grounding may partly explain the minimal transfer of health research into health policy.

methodsThis article seeks to present the development of the definition for healthcare improvement science. A consensus method approach was adopted with a two-stage Delphi process, expert panel and consensus group techniques. A total of 18 participants were involved in the expert panel and consensus group, and 153 answers were analysed as a part of the Delphi survey. Participants were researchers, educators and healthcare professionals from Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Italy, England, Poland, and Romania.

resultsA high level of consensus was achieved for the broad definition in the 2nd Delphi iteration (86%). The final definition was agreed on by the consensus group: 'Healthcare improvement science is the generation of knowledge to cultivate change and deliver person-centred care that is safe, effective, efficient, equitable and timely. It improves patient outcomes, health system performance and population health.'

conclusionsThe process of developing a consensus definition revealed different understandings of healthcare improvement science between the participants. Having a shared consensus definition of healthcare improvement science is an important step forward, bringing about a common understanding in order to advance the professional education and practice of healthcare improvement science.

Indexed as

consensus methodsdefinitionEuropehealthcareimprovementsscience

Identifiers

PMID28289467
PMCPMC5329771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.