ArticleBMC health services research2024
Starting continuous improvement; creating a common understanding of stroke care delivery in a general hospital.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Back on track: a case study on sustaining and reducing stroke treatment times in a medium-sized Norwegian hospital.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuous improvement is based on fostering practitioners' suggestions to modify their own work processes This improvement strategy is widely applied in healthcare but difficult to maintain. The cross-disciplinary nature of many care processes constitutes an extra impediment.
methodsThe study had an explorative design with a qualitative single-case approach. The case presents a project to improve the treatment of patients with thrombotic stroke. Data was obtained via hands on involvement, documents, observations, and interviews with participants in a cross-functional improvement group. A thematic analysis method was employed.
resultsThrough learning how tasks were carried out in other disciplines, the participants developed a common understanding of why it took so long to provide treatment to stroke patients. These insights were used to implement practical changes, leading to immediate improvements in stroke care delivery. The results were fed back so that successes became visible. Participants' understandings of the local context enabled them to convince peers of the rationale of changes, setting in motion a permanent improvement structure. The participants considered that mapping and then assessing the entire workflow across disciplines were relevant methods for improving the quality of patient care.
conclusionStarting an improvement project in a cross disciplinary environment requires deep engagement on the part of professionals. A quintessential prerequisite is therefore the realization that the quality of care depends on cross-disciplinary cooperation. A facilitated learning arena needs to (1) create insights into each other's colleagues' tasks and process interdependencies, (2) increase understanding of how the distribution of tasks among specialist units affects the quality of care, and (3) frequently report and provide feedback on results to keep the process going.
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.