Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38641786›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

A scoping review of continuous quality improvement in healthcare system: conceptualization, models and tools, barriers and facilitators, and impact.

Aklilu Endalamaw, Resham B Khatri, Tesfaye Setegn Mengistu, Daniel Erku, Eskinder Wolka, Anteneh Zewdie, Yibeltal Assefa

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
141.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Practice guideline for standardized construction of ambulatory surgery in pediatric otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2026
    Guideline
  2. The Multidisciplinary Support To Access living donor Kidney Transplant (MuST AKT) intervention: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Aklilu EndalamawSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. yaklilu12@gmail.com.
Resham B KhatriSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Tesfaye Setegn MengistuSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Daniel ErkuSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Eskinder WolkaInternational Institute for Primary Health Care in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Anteneh ZewdieInternational Institute for Primary Health Care in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Yibeltal AssefaSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
University of Queensland · AUBahir Dar University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growing adoption of continuous quality improvement (CQI) initiatives in healthcare has generated a surge in research interest to gain a deeper understanding of CQI. However, comprehensive evidence regarding the diverse facets of CQI in healthcare has been limited. Our review sought to comprehensively grasp the conceptualization and principles of CQI, explore existing models and tools, analyze barriers and facilitators, and investigate its overall impacts.

methodsThis qualitative scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. We searched articles in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases. In addition, we accessed articles from Google Scholar. We used mixed-method analysis, including qualitative content analysis and quantitative descriptive for quantitative findings to summarize findings and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework to report the overall works.

resultsA total of 87 articles, which covered 14 CQI models, were included in the review. While 19 tools were used for CQI models and initiatives, Plan-Do-Study/Check-Act cycle was the commonly employed model to understand the CQI implementation process. The main reported purposes of using CQI, as its positive impact, are to improve the structure of the health system (e.g., leadership, health workforce, health technology use, supplies, and costs), enhance healthcare delivery processes and outputs (e.g., care coordination and linkages, satisfaction, accessibility, continuity of care, safety, and efficiency), and improve treatment outcome (reduce morbidity and mortality). The implementation of CQI is not without challenges. There are cultural (i.e., resistance/reluctance to quality-focused culture and fear of blame or punishment), technical, structural (related to organizational structure, processes, and systems), and strategic (inadequate planning and inappropriate goals) related barriers that were commonly reported during the implementation of CQI.

conclusionsImplementing CQI initiatives necessitates thoroughly comprehending key principles such as teamwork and timeline. To effectively address challenges, it's crucial to identify obstacles and implement optimal interventions proactively. Healthcare professionals and leaders need to be mentally equipped and cognizant of the significant role CQI initiatives play in achieving purposes for quality of care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality ImprovementHumansModels, OrganizationalTotal Quality ManagementContinuous quality improvementQuality of Care

Identifiers

PMID38641786
PMCPMC11031995
OpenAlexW4394953197

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.