ArticleAmerican journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality
Health Care Project Improvement Design: Proficiency Among University Faculty.
Article in American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A century of wild bee sampling: historical data and neural network analysis reveal ecological traits associated with species loss.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Increasing Faculty Participation and Mentorship in Quality Improvement with an Experiential Four-Hour Workshop.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose was to measure faculty members': (1) knowledge of quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS), (2) attitudes and beliefs about their own QI skills, and (3) self-efficacy toward participating in, leading, and teaching QIPS. Faculty completed an online survey. Questions assessed demographic and academic characteristics, knowledge, attitudes/beliefs, and self-efficacy. Knowledge was measured using the Quality Improvement Knowledge Assessment Tool-Revised (QIKAT-R). Participants provided free-text responses to questions about clinical scenarios. Almost half of participants (n = 236) self-reported that they were moderately or extremely comfortable with QIPS skills. Few were very (20%) or most (15%) comfortable teaching QIPS. Ninety-one participants attempted the QIKAT-R, and 78 participants completed it. The mean score was 16.6 (SD = 5.6). Despite positive attitudes and beliefs about their own QIPS skills, study results demonstrate a general lack of knowledge among surveyed faculty members. Faculty development efforts are needed to improve proficiency in participating, leading, and teaching QIPS projects.
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.