Observational studySurgical endoscopy2021
Open innovation facilitates department-wide engagement in quality improvement: experience from the Massachusetts General Hospital.
Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. 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.
- A Pilot Study to Create a Culture of Innovation and Quality: Focus on a Nursing Association, Credentialing Center, and Foundation.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Use of an innovation center to foster high-value COVID-19 care at an academic healthcare system.Journal of hospital medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality improvement (QI) initiatives commonly originate 'top-down' from senior leadership, as staff engagement is often sporadic. We describe our experience with a technology-enabled open innovation contest to encourage participation from multiple stakeholders in a Department of Surgery (DoS) to solicit ideas for QI. We aimed to stimulate engagement and to assist DoS leadership in prioritizing QI initiatives.
methodsObservational study of a process improvement. The process had five phases: anonymous online submission of ideas by frontline staff; anonymous online crowd-voting to rank ideas on a scale whether the DoS should implement each idea (1 = No, 3 = Maybe, 5 = Yes); ideas with scores ≥ 95th percentile were invited to submit implementation plans; plans were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary panel to select a winning idea; an award ceremony celebrated the completion of the contest.
results152 ideas were submitted from 95 staff (n = 850, 11.2%). All Divisions (n = 12) and all staff roles (n = 12) submitted ideas. The greatest number of ideas were submitted by faculty (27.6%), patient service coordinators (18.4%), and residents (17.8%). The most common QI category was access to care (20%). 195 staff (22.9%) cast 3559 votes. The mean score was 3.5 ± 0.5. 10 Ideas were objectively invited to submit implementation plans. One idea was awarded a grand prize of funding, project management, and leadership buy-in.
conclusionA web-enabled open innovation contest was successful in engaging faculty, residents, and other critical role groups in QI. It also enabled the leadership to re-affirm a positive culture of inclusivity, maintain an open-door policy, and also democratically vet and prioritize solutions for quality 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.