Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29996836›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Implementation of continuous quality improvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care in Australia: a scoping systematic review.

Karen Gardner, Beverly Sibthorpe, Mier Chan, Ginny Sargent, Michelle Dowden, Daniel McAullay

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Fostering Health Literacy Responsiveness in a Remote Primary Health Care Setting: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Karen GardnerPublic Service Research Group, Business School, UNSW Canberra, Canberra, Australia. karen.gardner@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9783-3575
Beverly SibthorpeSenseMakers 4 Smarter Care, Port Macquarie, NSW, 2444, Australia.
Mier ChanAustralian Primary Health Care Research Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia.
Ginny SargentResearch, Evaluation and Public Health Nutrition Section, Population Health Division, Health Improvement Branch, ACT Health, Canberra, ACT, 260, Australia.
Michelle DowdenOne Disease, Menzies Building, RDH Campus, Rocklands Drive, Tiwi, NT, 0810, Australia.
Daniel McAullayKurongkurl Katitjin, Edith Cowan University, 2 Bradford St, Mount Lawley, WA, 6050, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous Quality Improvement (CQI) programs have been taken up widely by Indigenous primary health care (PHC) services in Australia and there has been national policy commitment to support this. However, international evidence shows that implementing CQI is challenging, impacts are variable and little is known about the factors that impede or enhance effectiveness. A scoping review was undertaken to explore uptake and implementation in Indigenous PHC, including barriers and enablers to embedding CQI in routine practice. We provide guidance on how research and evaluation might be intensified to support implementation.

methodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Key websites and publications were handsearched. Studies conducted in Indigenous PHC which demonstrated some combination of CQI characteristics and assessed some aspect of implementation were included. A two stage analysis was undertaken. Stage 1 identified the breadth and focus of literature. Stage 2 investigated barriers and enablers. The Framework for Performance Assessment in PHC (2008) was used to frame the analysis. Data were extracted on the study type, approach, timeframes, CQI strategies, barriers and enablers.

resultsSixty articles were included in Stage 1 and 21 in Stage 2. Barriers to implementing CQI processes relate primarily to professional and organisational processes and operate at multiple levels (individual, team, service, health system) whereas barriers to improved care relate more directly to knowledge of best practice and team processes that facilitate appropriate care. Few studies described implementation timeframes, number of CQI cycles or improvement strategies implemented and only two applied a change theory.

conclusionInvestigating barriers and enablers that modify implementation and impacts of CQI poses conceptual and methodological challenges. More complete description of CQI processes, implementation strategies, and barriers and enablers could enhance capacity for comparisons across settings and contribute to better understanding of key success factors.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based PracticeHealth Services, IndigenousHumansPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareBarriers and enablersContinuous quality improvementCQIIndigenous healthPrimary health careQuality

Identifiers

PMID29996836
PMCPMC6042325

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.