ArticleBMJ open quality2020
Novel team-based approach to quality improvement effectively engages staff and reduces adverse events in healthcare settings.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing Large-Volume Paracentesis in a Gastroenterology Ward: A Two-Cycle Quality Improvement Project.Cureus · 2026Article
- Leveraging Kaizen with Process Mining in Healthcare Settings: A Conceptual Framework for Data-Driven Continuous Improvement.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- "If we work as a team, there are success stories." Unpacking team members' perceptions and experiences of what impacts team performance in a maternal and neonatal quality improvement programme in South Africa, before, and during COVID-19.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Collective Competence as an Enabler for Service Integration in Health and Social Care Services.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
- Prevention of Prosthetic Joint Infection: From Traditional Approaches towards Quality Improvement and Data Mining.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite significant attention to safety and quality in healthcare over two decades, patient harm in hospitals remains a challenge. There is now growing emphasis on continuous quality improvement, with approaches that engage front-line staff. Our objective was to determine whether a novel approach to reviewing routine clinical practice through structured conversations
methodsOnce a week over a 10-month period, front-line staff were engaged in 35 min team-based conversations about routine practices relating to five national safety standards. Structure for the conversations was provided by interactive graphical logic maps representing each standard. Staff awareness of-and attitudes to-quality improvement, as well as their perceptions of the intervention and its impact, were canvassed through surveys. The impact of the intervention on measures of patient safety was determined through analysis of selected incident data reported in the hospital's risk management system.
resultsThe DISCUSSION: This exploratory study provided promising initial results on the feasibility and effectiveness of
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.