Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37985609›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024

Catalyzing System Change: 100 Quality Improvement Projects in 1000 Days.

Amelia Sattler, Anuradha Phadke, Jake Mickelsen, Timothy Seay-Morrison, Heather Filipowicz, Davis Chhoa, Malathi Srinivasan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

7 authors.

Amelia SattlerStanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. amelia2@stanford.edu.ORCID 0009-0004-3293-4518
Anuradha PhadkeStanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Jake MickelsenStanford Health Care, Stanford, CA, USA.
Timothy Seay-MorrisonStanford Health Care, Stanford, CA, USA.
Heather FilipowiczStanford Health Care, Stanford, CA, USA.
Davis ChhoaStanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Malathi SrinivasanStanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth system change requires quality improvement (QI) infrastructure that supports frontline staff implementing sustainable innovations. We created an 8-week rapid-cycle QI training program, Stanford Primary Care-Project Engagement Platform (PC-PEP), open to patient-facing primary care clinicians and staff.

objectiveExamine the feasibility and outcomes of a scalable QI program for busy practicing providers and staff in an academic medical center.

designProgram evaluation.

participantsA total of 172 PCPH team members: providers (n = 55), staff (n = 99), and medical learners (n = 18) in the Stanford Division of Primary Care and Population Health (PCPH) clinics, 2018-2021. MAIN MEASURES: We categorized projects by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI) Quintuple Aim (QA): better health, better patient experience, lower cost of care, better care team experience, and improved equity/inclusion. We assessed project progress with a modified version of The Ottawa Hospital Innovation Framework: step 1 (identified root causes), step 2 (designed/tested interventions), step 3 (assessed project outcome), step 4 (met project goal with target group), step 5A (intervention(s) spread within clinic), step 5B (intervention(s) spread to different setting). Participants rated post-participation QI self-efficacy. KEY

resultsWithin 1000 days, 172 unique participants completed 104 PC-PEP projects. Most projects aimed to improve patient health (55%) or care team experience (23%). Among projects, 9% reached step 1, 8% step 2, 16% step 3, 26% step 4, 21% step 5A, and 20% step 5B. Learner involvement increased likelihood of scholarly products (47% vs 10%). Forty-six of 47 (98%) survey respondents reported improved QI self-efficacy. Medical assistants, more so than physicians, reported feeling acknowledged by the health system for their QI efforts (100% vs 61%).

conclusionsWith appropriate QI infrastructure, scalable QI training models like Stanford PC-PEP can empower frontline workers to create meaningful changes across the IHI QA.

Indexed as

Program EvaluationQuality ImprovementFemaleHumansMaleOrganizational InnovationPrimary Health Careeducation medical [I02.358.399].interprofessional education [I02.358.805]primary health care [N04.590.233.727]quality improvement [J01.293.754]

Identifiers

PMID37985609
PMCPMC11074070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.