Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34341016›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2021

Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review.

Siobhán Eithne McCarthy, Samira Barbara Jabakhanji, Jennifer Martin, Maureen Alice Flynn, Jan Sørensen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors.

Siobhán Eithne McCarthyGraduate School of Healthcare Management, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland smccarthy@rcsi.ie.ORCID 0000-0001-5651-2409
Samira Barbara JabakhanjiHealthcare Outcomes Research Centre, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-4870-9110
Jennifer MartinNational Quality Improvement Team, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-4188-8136
Maureen Alice FlynnNational Quality Improvement Team, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-5837-8936
Jan SørensenHealthcare Outcomes Research Centre, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-0857-9267

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo profile the aims and characteristics of quality improvement (QI) initiatives conducted in Ireland, to review the quality of their reporting and to assess outcomes and costs.

designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, Lenus and rian.ie. Two researchers independently screened abstracts (n=379) and separately reviewed 43 studies identified for inclusion using a 70-item critique tool. The tool was based on the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS), an appraisal instrument for QI intervention publications, and health economics reporting criteria. After reaching consensus, the final dataset was analysed using descriptive statistics. To support interpretations, findings were presented at a national stakeholder workshop. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: QI studies implemented and evaluated in Ireland and published between January 2015 and April 2020.

resultsThe 43 studies represented various QI interventions. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (n=37), conducted in hospitals (n=38). Studies mainly aimed to improve the 'effectiveness' (65%), 'efficiency' (53%), 'timeliness' (47%) and 'safety' (44%) of care. Fewer aimed to improve 'patient-centredness' (30%), 'value for money' (23%) or 'staff well-being' (9%). No study aimed to increase 'equity'. Seventy per cent of studies described 14 of 16 QI-MQCS dimensions. Least often studies reported the 'penetration/reach' of an initiative and only 35% reported health outcomes. While 53% of studies expressed awareness of costs, only eight provided at least one quantifiable figure for costs or savings. No studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of the QI.

conclusionIrish QI studies included in our review demonstrate varied aims and high reporting standards. Strategies are needed to support greater stimulation and dissemination of QI beyond the hospital sector and awareness of equity issues as QI work. Systematic measurement and reporting of costs and outcomes can be facilitated by integrating principles of health economics in QI education and guidelines.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality ImprovementCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansIrelandcost-effectivenessevaluation methodologyquality improvementquality improvement methodologiesquality measurement

Identifiers

PMID34341016
PMCPMC8330587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.