Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28903723›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Domains associated with successful quality improvement in healthcare - a nationwide case study.

Aleidis Skard Brandrud, Bjørnar Nyen, Per Hjortdahl, Leiv Sandvik, Gro Sævil Helljesen Haldorsen, Maria Bergli, Eugene C Nelson, Michael Bretthauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The four main domains of the concept of return-on-investment from healthcare quality improvement programmes.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Developing a Unit-Based Quality Improvement Program in a Large Neonatal ICU.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A patient-level key performance indicator set to measure the effectiveness of fracture liaison services and guide quality improvement: a position paper of the IOF Capture the Fracture Working Group, National Osteoporosis Foundation and Fragility Fracture Network.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Quality Over Quantity: Standardization of Pediatric HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device Dressing Changes.ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992)
    Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Aleidis Skard BrandrudQuality Department, Vestre Viken Health Trust, Wergelandsgate 10, Postbox 800, 3004, Drammen, Norway. aleidis@online.no.
Bjørnar NyenMunicipality of Porsgrunn, Porstbox 128, N-3901, Porsgrunn, Norway.
Per HjortdahlDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, PO Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Leiv SandvikOslo Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Research support Services, Oslo University Hospital, Sogn Arena, Klaus Torgaards vei 3, 0372, Oslo, Norway.
Gro Sævil Helljesen HaldorsenSouth Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, PO Box 404, 2303, Hamar, Norway.
Maria BergliQuality Department, Vestre Viken Health Trust, Wergelandsgate 10, Postbox 800, 3004, Drammen, Norway.
Eugene C NelsonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, 30 Lafayette Street, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Michael BretthauerDepartment of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, PO Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a distinct difference between what we know and what we do in healthcare: a gap that is impairing the quality of the care and increasing the costs. Quality improvement efforts have been made worldwide by learning collaboratives, based on recognized continual improvement theory with limited scientific evidence. The present study of 132 quality improvement projects in Norway explores the conditions for improvement from the perspectives of the frontline healthcare professionals, and evaluates the effectiveness of the continual improvement method.

methodsAn instrument with 25 questions was developed on prior focus group interviews with improvement project members who identified features that may promote or inhibit improvement. The questionnaire was sent to 189 improvement projects initiated by the Norwegian Medical Association, and responded by 70% (132) of the improvement teams. A sub study of their final reports by a validated instrument, made us able to identify the successful projects and compare their assessments with the assessments of the other projects. A factor analysis with Varimax rotation of the 25 questions identified five domains. A multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate the association with successful quality improvements.

resultsTwo of the five domains were associated with success: Measurement and Guidance (p = 0.011), and Professional environment (p = 0.015). The organizational leadership domain was not associated with successful quality improvements (p = 0.26).

conclusionOur findings suggest that quality improvement projects with good guidance and focus on measurement for improvement have increased likelihood of success. The variables in these two domains are aligned with improvement theory and confirm the effectiveness of the continual improvement method provided by the learning collaborative. High performing professional environments successfully engaged in patient-centered quality improvement if they had access to: (a) knowledge of best practice provided by professional subject matter experts, (b) knowledge of current practice provided by simple measurement methods, assisted by (c) improvement knowledge experts who provided useful guidance on measurement, and made the team able to organize the improvement efforts well in spite of the difficult resource situation (time and personnel). Our findings may be used by healthcare organizations to develop effective infrastructure to support improvement and to create the conditions for making quality and safety improvement a part of everyone's job.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansLeadershipNorwayOrganizational ObjectivesPatient SafetyQuality ImprovementSurveys and QuestionnairesConditions for changeContextContinual improvementLearning collaborativesQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID28903723
PMCPMC5597987

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.