SynthesisBMJ open quality2023
Effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in UK surgical settings and barriers and facilitators influencing their implementation: a systematic review and evidence synthesis.
Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries.The British journal of surgery · 2024Trial
- "Talking to Someone Who Gets It…" Experiences of Surgical Site Teams in Implementing a Peer Support Programme for Surgeons After Adverse Events.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The impact of best practice meetings on clinical outcomes in surgical and oncological care: a scoping review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Determinants of sustainable quality improvement for operating room clean air systems: a two-phase sequential qualitative study in Dutch hospitals.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A Standardized Screening and Prioritization Tool in Support of Program-Based Quality Improvement.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Implementing quality improvement in vascular services: a qualitative study.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- He Lives and He Reigns.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- An examination of the literature surrounding leadership and change management to implement a Golden Theatre Initiative: Reducing inefficiencies within a neurosurgical operating department.Journal of perioperative practice · 2025Review
- Development and usability testing of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value injury care.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to high-volume evidence-based innovation and implementation in a large, community-based learning health system.BMC health services research · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality surgical care is vital to deliver the excellent outcomes patients deserve following surgical treatment. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are based on a multicentre model for improving healthcare. They are increasingly used but their effectiveness in the context of surgical services is unclear. This review assessed effectiveness of QICs in National Health Service (NHS) surgical settings, and identified factors that influenced implementation.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as grey literature, was conducted in January 2022 to identify evaluations of QICs in NHS surgical settings. Data were extracted on the intervention, setting, study results and factors that were identified as facilitators or barriers. These were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The quality of study reports was assessed using Quality Improvement Minimum Criteria Set.
resultsFifteen reports on 10 QICs met inclusion criteria. The evaluations used study designs of different strength, with one using a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eight studies reported the QIC had been successful in achieving their principal aims, which covered a mix of patient outcomes and process indicators. The study based on the RCT found the QIC was not successful (no improvement in patient outcomes). Each article reported a range of facilitators and barriers to effectiveness of implementation of the QIC, which were spread across the CFIR domains (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals and process). There were few barriers reported in the intervention domain that related to the QIC. There was no clear relationship between numbers of facilitators and barriers reported and effectiveness.
conclusionsStudies have reported QICs to be effective in increasingly complex contexts, but their results must be treated with caution. The evaluations often used weak study designs and the quality of reports was variable. Evaluation with strong study design should be integral to future QICs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022324970.
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.