Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42303386›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2026

Evaluating a quality improvement learning collaborative: qualitative evaluation of Using Labs Wisely.

Andrea M Patey, Varunaavee Sivashanmugathas, Gillian Hurwitz, Adina Weinerman, Janet Simons, Wendy Levinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

6 authors.

Andrea M PateyMedicine, Quality and Safety, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada andrea.patey@iwk.nshealth.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-8770-4494
Varunaavee SivashanmugathasUniversity of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gillian HurwitzChoosing Wisely Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Adina WeinermanSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5527-7619
Janet SimonsDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Wendy LevinsonUniversity of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOveruse of low-value laboratory tests can harm patients, waste healthcare resources and contribute to environmental damage. To address this, Choosing Wisely Canada launched

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using a theory-informed interview guide based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Fifteen hospitals in the first ULW cohort were invited to participate. Interviews with clinicians and managers explored experiences with ULW, including what worked, what did not and recommendations for improvement. Transcripts were analysed inductively using thematic analysis, with themes reviewed collaboratively and mapped to TFA constructs.

resultsThirteen hospitals participated, reflecting strong interest in reducing low-value testing and valuing ULW's structured, collaborative approach. Participants highlighted the programme's national credibility, resources and peer learning opportunities which facilitated institutional buy-in and elevated the laboratory's role in quality improvement. While generally manageable, common challenges included difficulties with data extraction, lack of standardisation across systems and limited human resources, particularly during pandemic-related strain. Participants called for expanded quality improvement training, clinical outcome tracking and cross-site collaboration to address increasingly complex and costly tests.

conclusionsULW successfully supported hospitals to reduce low-value laboratory testing through structured improvement, benchmarking and peer learning. Challenges remain, particularly around data and resources, but the evaluation highlights key enablers and lessons that can inform the programme's evolution and guide future collaboratives in other healthcare settings.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorLearningQuality ImprovementCanadaHumansProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchHealthcare quality improvementImplementation scienceLaboratory medicineQualitative researchQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID42303386
PMCPMC13289139

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.