Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39793983›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

Five principles to prioritise in small-scale surgical quality improvement: a qualitative study of the views of surgical improvement leaders.

Clifford Y Ko, Alessandra Giusti, Graham Martin, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. He Lives and He Reigns.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Clifford Y KoDivision of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois, USA cko@facs.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3186-8673
Alessandra GiustiStrangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK.
Graham MartinStrangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK.
Mary Dixon-WoodsStrangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveVariations in the quality and safety of surgical care remain persistent. Efforts to improve are needed, but are themselves variably effective, with often disappointing impacts. When compared with large-scale, multisite and better resourced improvement efforts, the evidence base for small-scale quality improvement (QI) has remained under-developed and lacking in clarity on good practice. We aimed to identify experienced leaders' views on the principles that should guide small-scale QI projects in surgery.

methodsTwo rounds of virtual focus groups were conducted with 10 QI leaders, comprising surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses from three countries (Ireland, the UK and the USA). All participants had formal training in improvement techniques and at least 10 years' experience leading small-scale QI efforts in surgery. Analysis was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method together with content analysis.

resultsAnalysis of the focus groups identified five principles to prioritise for small-scale surgical QI: ensure high-quality planning before project launch; understand the problem to be solved to define focused project aims; ensure improvement efforts are sensitive to time, capacity and local context; assemble the right improvement team and engage the relevant stakeholders; and use of a clear, structured framework to guide QI is likely to be very helpful.

conclusionsThis study identifies five principles likely to be useful in guiding better surgical QI in frontline settings. These principles can help inform a structured framework to support small-scale surgical improvement efforts.

Indexed as

General SurgeryLeadershipQuality ImprovementFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomUnited StatesQuality improvementQuality improvement methodologiesSurgery

Identifiers

PMID39793983
PMCPMC11751978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.