ArticleBMJ open2022
Protocol for an integrated evaluation framework to study training, curricular and contextual factors impacting the success of a measurement for improvement training programme for healthcare staff in Ireland.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurse education on sedation management in ECMO: A small-group training approach.Journal of perioperative practice · 2026Article
- Employing Kirkpatrick's framework to evaluate nurse training: an integrative review.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2025Review
- Factors influencing measurement for improvement skills in healthcare staff: trainee, and trainer perspectives.BMC medical education · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMeasurement for improvement is the process of collecting, analysing and presenting data to demonstrate whether a change has resulted in an improvement. It is also important in demonstrating sustainability of improvements through continuous measurement. This makes measurement for improvement a core element in quality improvement (QI) efforts. However, there is little to no research investigating factors that influence measurement for improvement skills in healthcare staff. This protocol paper presents an integrated evaluation framework to understand the training, curricular and contextual factors that influence the success of measurement for improvement training by using the experiences of trainees, trainers, programme and site coordinators. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research will adopt a qualitative retrospective case study design based on constructivist-pragmatic philosophy. The Pressure Ulcers to Zero collaborative and the Clinical Microsystems collaborative from the Irish health system which included a measurement for improvement component have been selected for this study. This paper presents an integrated approach proposing a novel application of two pre-existing frameworks: the Model for Understanding Success in Quality framework and the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model to evaluate an unexplored QI context and programme. A thematic analysis of the qualitative interview data and the documents collected will be conducted. The thematic analysis is based on a four-step coding framework adapted for this research study. The coding process will be conducted using NVivo V.12 software and Microsoft Excel. A cross-case comparison between the two cases will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received an exemption from full ethical review from the Human Research Ethics Committee of University College Dublin, Ireland (LS-E-19-108). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants and the data will be anonymised and stored securely. The results of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals.
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.