ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Increasing clinical recruitment rate to a single-site observational study: a quality improvement study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClinical recruitment encompasses a significant challenge in multidisciplinary research, often acting as a bottleneck to timely completion due to slower-than-expected patient enrolment rates. Addressing this, enhanced communication within clinical departments is crucial. A quality improvement (QI) study was initiated in the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital (MMUH) to increase the slow recruitment rate of cancer-associated thrombosis patients to the EXPECT Study.
methodsProcess and stakeholder mapping as well as Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) cycles highlighted effective initiatives to increase recruitment rates to the study. The PDSA cycle 1 aimed at increasing clinical communication and study education through implementation of work package-1, which included engaging a clinical project sponsor to drive recruitment and increasing study awareness through educational talks/informative materials. The PDSA cycle 2 aimed to increase process efficiency and paired sample acquisition through implementation of work package-2, which included holding weekly QI meetings, building a strong multidisciplinary QI team and mapping the recruitment process. These efforts aimed to increase recruitment from one to four patients enrolled per month, with recruitment progress tracked with a run/bar chart over a 2 year period.
resultsThe communication/education work package-1 initiatives increased the recruitment rate from one to two patients per month, with target enrolment met or exceeded 33% of the QI-project duration. Recruitment numbers nearly doubled in roughly half the timeframe, from 10 patients enrolled in the first 16 months to 18 patients enrolled in the 9 months of the QI study. Furthermore, a greater than threefold statistically significant increase in paired sample acquisition from 20% to 66% was documented following the execution of the second PDSA cycle, aimed at improving process efficiency.
conclusionsThis QI study highlights the need for a highly engaged study team, specifically the clinical project sponsor driving recruitment from a medical front-line perspective as well as a highly efficient recruitment process.
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.