SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2023
Factors that influence the implementation of (inter)nationally endorsed health and social care standards: a systematic review and meta-summary.
Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare workers' sustainable employability in relation to quality of care: an umbrella review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Assessing the feasibility and acceptability of implementing emergency department quality standards in Palestine: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Improving the quality of child and youth mental health care through an implementation science lens.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Rapid response systems, antibiotic stewardship and medication reconciliation: a scoping review on implementation factors, activities and outcomes.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- Acute Stroke Units Nested within Broader Neurology: Care Bundles for Nursing to Enhance Competence and Interdisciplinary Coordination.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Exploring the implementation of national health and social care standards in Ireland: A qualitative descriptive study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Swedish translation of the iSUPPORT rights-based standards to support paediatric patients having a clinical procedure.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2025Article
- The co-design of a digitally supported intervention for selecting implementation tools and actions for standards (SITAS).BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth and social care standards have been widely adopted as a quality improvement intervention. Standards are typically made up of evidence-based statements that describe safe, high-quality, person-centred care as an outcome or process of care delivery. They involve stakeholders at multiple levels and multiple activities across diverse services. As such, challenges exist with their implementation. Existing literature relating to standards has focused on accreditation and regulation programmes and there is limited evidence to inform implementation strategies specifically tailored to support the implementation of standards. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe the most frequently reported enablers and barriers to implementing (inter)nationally endorsed standards, in order to inform the selection of strategies that can optimise their implementation.
methodsDatabase searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SocINDEX, Google Scholar, OpenGrey and GreyNet International, complemented by manual searches of standard-setting bodies' websites and hand searching references of included studies. Primary qualitative, quantitative descriptive and mixed methods studies that reported enablers and barriers to implementing nationally or internationally endorsed standards were included. Two researchers independently screened search outcomes and conducted data extraction, methodological appraisal and CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) assessments. An inductive analysis was conducted using Sandelowski's meta-summary and measured frequency effect sizes (FES) for enablers and barriers.
results4072 papers were retrieved initially with 35 studies ultimately included. Twenty-two thematic statements describing enablers were created from 322 descriptive findings and grouped under six themes. Twenty-four thematic statements describing barriers were created from 376 descriptive findings and grouped under six themes. The most prevalent enablers with CERQual assessments graded as high included: available support tools at local level (FES 55%); training courses to increase awareness and knowledge of the standards (FES 52%) and knowledge sharing and interprofessional collaborations (FES 45%). The most prevalent barriers with CERQual assessments graded as high included: a lack of knowledge of what standards are (FES 63%), staffing constraints (FES 46%), insufficient funds (FES 43%).
conclusionsThe most frequently reported enablers related to available support tools, education and shared learning. The most frequently reported barriers related to a lack of knowledge of standards, staffing issues and insufficient funds. Incorporating these findings into the selection of implementation strategies will enhance the likelihood of effective implementation of standards and subsequently, improve safe, quality care for people using health and social care services.
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.