ArticleBMJ open2019
Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How Have Quality Improvement Strategies Been Adopted and How Has Impact Been Assessed in Care Homes for Older People? A Systematic Search and Narrative Review.International journal of older people nursing · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Article
- Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010-2023.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Review
- Article
- A pragmatic context assessment tool (pCAT): using a Think Aloud method to develop an assessment of contextual barriers to change.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- A scoping review of local quality improvement using data from UK perioperative National Clinical Audits.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- Article
- Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- How helpful are Patient and Public Involvement strategic documents - Results of a framework analysis using 4Pi National Involvement Standards.Research involvement and engagement · 2019Article
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
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
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.