ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Improving departmental Quality Improvement Plans through standardisation, structured peer-to-peer feedback and building improvement capacity and culture.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionQuality Improvement Plans (QIPs) can improve healthcare quality by raising awareness and providing a focus for improvement efforts. The physician-led quality committee at our institution set out to improve the previously heterogenous quality and content of clinical department QIPs and increase alignment between clinical department and hospital quality improvement (QI) priorities. We describe these initiatives and assess their impact on the quality of departmental QIPs.
methodsThe Physician Quality Committee at our academic tertiary care hospital implemented a series of interventions, including a peer-to-peer feedback mechanism, longitudinal education and coaching, standardised QI project templates and efforts to facilitate culture change. The QIPs from 13 clinical departments were reviewed for the years before (2018-2019) and after the interventions (2022-2023) and scored according to a structured rubric, created by consensus among physician quality leads. Data are reported as means and medians (IQR). A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate for statistical significance. A Likert-scale survey was used to assess physician QI leads' perception of the impact of the initiatives.
resultsThe mean score on the structured rubric was 4.4/12 for the QIPs from 2018 to 2019 and 8.0/12 for the QIPs from 2022 to 2023 (Z=3.06, p=0.0005). The median score (25th, 75th percentile) in 2018-2019 was 4.5 (3.5, 5.13), which increased to 8.5 (7.0, 9.0) in 2022-2023. The survey response for physician QI leads was 10/13 (76.9%). The most positive response was the QI lead's knowledge and understanding of how to structure a QI project (mean score of 4.4/5); the least positive response was related to departmental focus and clarity regarding QI priorities (mean score of 3.9/5).
conclusionsMultifaceted physician-led interventions resulted in improvements in the quality and content of clinical department QIPs, improved physician knowledge of QI methodology, enhanced focus and clarity around departmental QI priorities, and improved awareness of hospital-wide improvement efforts.
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.