Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42262713›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2026

Improving the quality of general surgery continuous quality improvement rounds: lessons learned from British Columbia.

Nathan Louie, Sam M Wiseman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Nathan LouieDepartment of Surgery, St. Paul's Hospital & University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Sam M WisemanDepartment of Surgery, St. Paul's Hospital & University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. sam.wiseman@phc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous quality improvement rounds (CQIRs) play an important role in medical education, quality assurance, and accreditation in Canadian hospitals. This study aimed to establish a more thorough understanding of their specific application and perceived value in general surgery departments within hospitals in British Columbia (BC), Canada. A 27-item (and one additional optional item) cross-sectional survey was conducted between August-December 2023 amongst general surgery department heads across BC hospitals, with the goal of obtaining information on CQIR logistics such as scheduling, format, and content, as well as surgeons' subjective assessments of impact on quality improvement, educational value, and barriers to participation. Thirteen complete responses representing surgical departments across the province were qualitatively analyzed. Most reported monthly or every 4 months CQIR meetings, lasting at least one hour, with strong attendance by attending surgeons. Noted areas for improvement included the absence of specific inclusion criteria, the need for standardized error classification, and lack of post-CQIR engagement for learning assessment. Respondents expressed satisfaction with CQIR effectiveness but communicated a desire for more in-person meetings and increased structure. CQIRs in BC are effective but occur less frequently than is ideal for medical education and quality improvement. This study suggests an increase in meeting frequency and organization in case selection and analysis may enhance the delivery and application of key learning objectives. Future research in this area is needed.

Indexed as

General SurgeryQuality ImprovementTeaching RoundsBritish ColumbiaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesContinuous quality improvement roundsGeneral surgeryMorbidity and mortality conferencesQuality improvement

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.