ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Implementation of Outcome-Based Quality Improvement in Dutch Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centres.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOutcome monitoring supports quality improvement (QI) by helping organisations track performance, identify gaps, and guide improvements. This is particularly important for the management of costly chronic diseases with high practice variation such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Although the value of outcome data for QI is increasingly recognised, little is known about its use in practice. We explored how Dutch IBD centres implement outcome-based QI.
methodsA survey was sent to 67 Dutch IBD centres covering outcome monitoring practices, data infrastructure, involvement of healthcare providers in QI discussions, and the perceived value of using outcomes for QI. Fourteen follow-up interviews explored experiences, barriers, and facilitators.
resultsTwenty-eight centres were included (54% non-academic teaching, 25% academic, and 21% general hospitals), of which 79% regularly discussed outcomes within their IBD teams to support QI efforts. Of those, 95% implemented ≥ 1 QI initiatives annually informed by these discussions and 47% assessed their effectiveness regularly. However, consistent use of outcome-based QI was uncommon-only 18% discussed outcomes > 2 times per year. Commonly monitored outcomes were medication use (68%) clinician-reported outcomes (55%), and patient-reported outcomes (55%). Interviews revealed QI efforts were often limited by informal discussions that lacked aggregate data use and clear goals. Data systems were fragmented, and staff responsibilities were unclear. Staff engagement and management support were key enablers.
conclusionWhile outcome monitoring is common, it is not consistently used to support QI. Clarifying roles, improving data integration, and support in selecting meaningful outcomes may strengthen sustainable outcome-based QI.
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.