ArticleSAGE open medicine2019
Seeing the quality improvement forest through the quality improvement trees: A meta-synthesis of case studies in Florida and Georgia.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify important characteristics of quality improvement applications for population health and healthcare settings and to explore the use of quality improvement as a model for implementing and disseminating evidence-based or best practices.
methodsA meta-synthesis was used to examine published quality improvement case studies. A total of 10 published studies that were conducted in Florida and Georgia were examined and synthesized using meta-synthesis (a qualitative research methodology) for meaningful insights and lessons learned using defined meta-synthesis inclusion criteria. The primary focus of the analysis and synthesis were the reported processes and findings that included responses to structured questioning in addition to emergent results from direct observation and semi-structured open-ended interviewing.
resultsThe key insights for the use of quality improvement in public health and healthcare settings included (1) the essential importance of data monitoring, analysis, and data-based decision making; (2) the need to focus on internal mutable factors within organizations; (3) the critical role of quality improvement team group dynamics; (4) the value of using a quality improvement collaborative or multi-clinic quality council/committee for sharing and comparing performance on key metrics; and (5) the need to identify a quality improvement approach and methods for clarification as a structured quality improvement intervention.
conclusionIn addition to the advantages of using quality improvement to enhance or improve healthcare and public health services, there is also potential for quality improvement to serve as a model for enhancing the adoption of evidence-based practices within the context of dissemination and implementation research.
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.