Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40404211›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

One step on the QI journey: team perspectives on surveys for improvement.

Julie E Reed, Cassandra B Iroz, Julie K Johnson, Marjorie M Godfrey

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Julie E ReedJulie Reed Consultancy Ltd, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9974-2017
Cassandra B IrozCenter for Healthcare Studies, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3725-7582
Julie K JohnsonDepartment of Surgery, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7757-5529
Marjorie M GodfreyThe Microsystem Academy, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA margiegodfrey@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9489-9675

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurveys are widely used in healthcare to gather knowledge and information about services provided. There is a recognised gap between survey findings and their impact on practice, particularly for standardised surveys conducted at the national or organisational level. Findings are more likely to be acted on where there is a culture and infrastructure supportive of quality improvement (QI), but little is known about the experiences of local QI teams designing and using surveys in practice.

objectiveTo understand the experiences of QI teams designing and using surveys within a national QI collaborative, including perceived value and challenges.

methodsUsing an interactive research approach, 14 semistructured interviews were conducted with members of the Cystic Fibrosis Lung Transplant Transition Learning and Leadership Collaborative. Data were analysed through multiple rounds of coding and inductive thematic analysis.

resultsCollaborative participants viewed surveys positively as an improvement tool. The design and use of surveys was a team-based effort, embedded within the structure of the collaborative. Surveys illuminated local, microsystem and mesosystem data and provided patient and staff insights. As one step in the QI journey, surveys helped shape the direction of local QI work, resulting in positive changes in areas such as working relationships, patient interactions, staff education and work processes.Challenges experienced included: response rates and survey design, inability to act on findings, issues of sensitivity and anonymity, expertise to design surveys, time requirements, and survey fatigue.

conclusionsSurveys played a crucial role in driving QI efforts, leading to impactful changes in practice. Used within a supportive collaborative context, surveys became an essential tool for ongoing learning and improvement, highlighting the distinct needs of surveys used in QI compared with research.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamQuality ImprovementHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesCollaborative, breakthrough groupsHealthcare quality improvementQualitative researchQuality improvement methodologiesSurveys

Identifiers

PMID40404211
PMCPMC12096982

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.