Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31345983›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care.

Emma Leanne Jones, Mary Dixon-Woods, Graham P Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Barriers and facilitators to disseminating quality improvement and patient safety research: a scoping review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Emma Leanne JonesClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4318-9555
Mary Dixon-WoodsTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge Primary Care Unit, Cambridge, UK.
Graham P MartinTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge Primary Care Unit, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT097899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesQuality improvement (QI) may help to avert or mitigate the risks of suboptimal care, but it is often poorly reported in the healthcare literature. We aimed to identify the influences on reporting QI in the area of perioperative care, with a view to informing improvements in reporting QI across healthcare.

designQualitative interview study.

settingHealthcare and academic organisations in Australia, Europe and North America.

participantsStakeholders involved in or influencing the publication, writing or consumption of reports of QI studies in perioperative care.

resultsForty-two participants from six countries took part in the study. Participants included 15 authors (those who write QI reports), 12 consumers of QI reports (practitioners who apply QI research in practice), 11 journal editors and 4 authors of reporting guidelines. Participants identified three principal challenges in achieving high-quality QI reporting. First, the broad scope of QI reporting-ranging from small local projects to multisite research across different disciplines-causes uncertainty about where QI work should be published. Second, context is fundamental to the success of a QI intervention but is difficult to report in ways that support replication and development. Third, reporting is adversely affected by both proximal influences (such as lack of time to write up QI) and more distal, structural influences (such as norms about the format and content of biomedical research reporting), leading to incomplete reporting of QI findings.

conclusionsDivergent terminology and understandings of QI, along with existing reporting norms and the challenges of capturing context adequately yet succinctly, make for challenges in reporting QI. We offer suggestions for improvement.

Indexed as

Public Reporting of Healthcare DataQuality ImprovementAdultDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerioperative CareQualitative Researchpublishingqualitativequality improvementreporting

Identifiers

PMID31345983
PMCPMC6661647

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.