Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31443689›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2019

Understanding the influences on successful quality improvement in emergency general surgery: learning from the RCS Chole-QuIC project.

Timothy J Stephens, Jonathan R Bamber, Ian J Beckingham, Ellie Duncan, Nial F Quiney, John F Abercrombie, Graham Martin, Chole-QuIC collaborator group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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.

Timothy J StephensWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, c/o ACCU RESEARCH TEAM, 4th Floor, Central Tower, The Royal London Hospital, LONDON, E1 1BB, United Kingdom. t.t.stephens@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0206-0280
Jonathan R BamberPracticality Consulting, London, UK.
Ian J BeckinghamDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Ellie DuncanDepartment of Professional Standards, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
Nial F QuineyDepartment of Anaesthesia, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
John F AbercrombieThe Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Graham MartinTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Chole-QuIC collaborator group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute gallstone disease is the highest volume Emergency General Surgical presentation in the UK. Recent data indicate wide variations in the quality of care provided across the country, with national guidance for care delivery not implemented in most UK hospitals. Against this backdrop, the Royal College of Surgeons of England set up a 13-hospital quality improvement collaborative (Chole-QuIC) to support clinical teams to reduce time to surgery for patients with acute gallstone disease requiring emergency cholecystectomy.

methodsProspective, mixed-methods process evaluation to answer the following: (1) how was the collaborative delivered by the faculty and received, understood and enacted by the participants; (2) what influenced teams' ability to improve care for patients requiring emergency cholecystectomy? We collected and analysed a range of data including field notes, ethnographic observations of meetings, and project documentation. Analysis was based on the framework approach, informed by Normalisation Process Theory, and involved the creation of comparative case studies based on hospital performance during the project.

resultsChole-QuIC was delivered as planned and was well received and understood by participants. Four hospitals were identified as highly successful, based upon a substantial increase in the number of patients having surgery in line with national guidance. Conversely, four hospitals were identified as challenged, achieving no significant improvement. The comparative analysis indicate that six inter-related influences appeared most associated with improvement: (1) achieving clarity of purpose amongst site leads and key stakeholders; (2) capacity to lead and effective project support; (3) ideas to action; (4) learning from own and others' experience; (5) creating additional capacity to do emergency cholecystectomies; and (6) coordinating/managing the patient pathway.

conclusionCollaborative-based quality improvement is a viable strategy for emergency surgery but success requires the deployment of effective clinical strategies in conjunction with improvement strategies. In particular, achieving clarity of purpose about proposed changes amongst key stakeholders was a vital precursor to improvement, enabling the creation of additional surgical capacity and new pathways to be implemented effectively. Protected time, testing ideas, and the ability to learn quickly from data and experience were associated with greater impact within this cohort.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAttitude of Health PersonnelCase-Control StudiesCholecystectomyCooperative BehaviorEmergency Service, HospitalGallstonesHumansLeadershipPatient Care TeamProspective StudiesQuality ImprovementTime-to-TreatmentUnited KingdomBreakthrough collaborativeEvaluationGallstone diseaseNormalisation process theoryQuality improvementService improvement

Identifiers

PMID31443689
PMCPMC6708165

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.