ArticleLearning health systems2022
Evaluating clinician-led quality improvement initiatives: A system-wide embedded research partnership at Stanford Medicine.
Article in Learning health systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel Approach to Care Redesign Collaboration Between Emergency and Specialty Departments: Qualitative Experience Report.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Implementation of a 3-Tier Priority System for Emergency Department Patients' Follow-up in Orthopaedic Surgery.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Bridging research and practice in a learning health system: Developing and refining an embedded scholars program through insights from scholars and clinical mentors.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Four distinct models of learning health systems: Strength through diversity.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- A bridge between worlds: Embedding research in telepractice co-design with disability community.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Towards a Novel Patient Experience Survey System: Incorporating Physician Perspectives into Performance Feedback Dashboard Design.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Mixed methods evaluation of a specialty-specific system to promote physician engagement in safety and quality reporting in a large academic health system.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Partnership-building considerations for implementation science in learning health systems: a case study of the Implementation Science Collaborative in Alberta, Canada.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- Evaluating clinician-led quality improvement initiatives: A system-wide embedded research partnership at Stanford Medicine.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Learn to fly: Training and competencies to support the multidisciplinary workforce needs of learning health systems.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Many healthcare delivery systems have developed clinician-led quality improvement (QI) initiatives but fewer have also developed in-house evaluation units. Engagement between the two entities creates unique opportunities. Stanford Medicine funded a collaboration between their Improvement Capability Development Program (ICDP), which coordinates and incentivizes clinician-led QI efforts, and the Evaluation Sciences Unit (ESU), a multidisciplinary group of embedded researchers with expertise in implementation and evaluation sciences. Aim: To describe the ICDP-ESU partnership and report key learnings from the first 2 y of operation September 2019 to August 2021. Methods: Department-level physician and operational QI leaders were offered an ESU consultation to workshop design, methods, and overall scope of their annual QI projects. A steering committee of high-level stakeholders from operational, clinical, and research perspectives subsequently selected three projects for in-depth partnered evaluation with the ESU based on evaluability, importance to the health system, and broader relevance. Selected project teams met regularly with the ESU to develop mixed methods evaluations informed by relevant implementation science frameworks, while aligning the evaluation approach with the clinical teams' QI goals. Results: Sixty and 62 ICDP projects were initiated during the 2 cycles, respectively, across 18 departments, of which ESU consulted with 15 (83%). Within each annual cycle, evaluators made actionable, summative findings rapidly available to partners to inform ongoing improvement. Other reported benefits of the partnership included rapid adaptation to COVID-19 needs, expanded clinician evaluation skills, external knowledge dissemination through scholarship, and health system-wide knowledge exchange. Ongoing considerations for improving the collaboration included the need for multi-year support to enable nimble response to dynamic health system needs and timely data access. Conclusion: Presence of embedded evaluation partners in the enterprise-wide QI program supported identification of analogous endeavors (eg, telemedicine adoption) and cross-cutting lessons across QI efforts, clinician capacity building, and knowledge dissemination through scholarship.
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.