Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38097243›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

What are the features of high-performing quality improvement collaboratives? A qualitative case study of a state-wide collaboratives programme.

James G McGowan, Graham P Martin, Greta L Krapohl, Darrell A Campbell, Michael J Englesbe, Justin B Dimick, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A quality improvement approach to growth in moderate and late preterm infants in small NICUs.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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.

James G McGowanThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK james.mcgowan@thisinstitute.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6963-4106
Graham P MartinThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1979-7577
Greta L KrapohlDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7409-1433
Darrell A CampbellDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0855-6145
Michael J EnglesbeDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8691-9111
Justin B DimickDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4796-6641
Mary Dixon-WoodsThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5915-0041

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite their widespread use, the evidence base for the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives remains mixed. Lack of clarity about 'what good looks like' in collaboratives remains a persistent problem. We aimed to identify the distinctive features of a state-wide collaboratives programme that has demonstrated sustained improvements in quality of care in a range of clinical specialties over a long period.

designQualitative case study involving interviews with purposively sampled participants, observations and analysis of documents.

settingThe Michigan Collaborative Quality Initiatives programme.

participants38 participants, including clinicians and managers from 10 collaboratives, and staff from the University of Michigan and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

resultsWe identified five features that characterised success in the collaboratives programme: learning from positive deviance; high-quality coordination; high-quality measurement and comparative performance feedback; careful use of motivational levers; and mobilising professional leadership and building community. Rigorous measurement, securing professional leadership and engagement, cultivating a collaborative culture, creating accountability for quality, and relieving participating sites of unnecessary burdens associated with programme participation were all important to high performance.

conclusionsOur findings offer valuable learning for optimising collaboration-based approaches to improvement in healthcare, with implications for the design, structure and resourcing of quality improvement collaboratives. These findings are likely to be useful to clinicians, managers, policy-makers and health system leaders engaged in multiorganisational approaches to improving quality and safety.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorQuality ImprovementDelivery of Health CareHumansMedical AssistanceQualitative ResearchHealth policyHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTOrganisation of health servicesPublic HospitalsQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID38097243
PMCPMC10729078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.