ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Implementing quality improvement in vascular services: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Peripheral Arterial Disease Quality Improvement Programme (PAD QIP) was a quality improvement (QI) collaborative between 11 English vascular surgery centres from May 2020 to May 2022, aiming to expedite treatment for PAD. This qualitative study explored beliefs about the PAD QIP and barriers and facilitators to implementation of changes in vascular surgery.
methodsSixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians from the vascular centres that participated in the PAD QIP and were analysed using framework analysis, based on the five broad domains within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
resultsFive themes captured the main factors that affected the implementation of changes in the pathway of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: the programme, the benefit for patients, the role of the team, the resources and organisational processes, and the polarising effect of COVID-19. Regarding the programme, participants stated that the concrete timeframes, external performance monitoring, peer comparison and the programme's national reach helped them obtain resources to implement changes. Learning from and sharing experiences with others was also useful. Accurate performance data were considered essential for leveraging resources, but data entry was onerous and required dedicated staff. The view that the programme was beneficial for patients, the support of a team of healthcare professionals and organisational support in the form of resources were important requirements for implementation, while the COVID-19 pandemic also played a crucial role as a contextual factor beyond the control of the participants. The main factors that differed between high-implementation and low-implementation centres were team beliefs, team structure, team compatibility, networks/communication, resources, implementation climate, relative priority and evidence strength.
conclusionsThis QI collaborative facilitated the implementation of changes according to participants, while team and organisational support was crucial.
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.