ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Evaluating a quality improvement learning collaborative: qualitative evaluation of Using Labs Wisely.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.