ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Fostering Locally Led Palliative Care Innovation: A Qualitative Evaluation of the SPHERE-Stanford Collaborative Quality Improvement Program.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAustralia is recognized internationally for high-quality palliative care, yet inequities in access, variable service models, and workforce pressures limit safe, effective, and person-centered care. Quality Improvement (QI) approaches offer a practical method for addressing these gaps. To build local QI capability, the Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise partnered with Stanford Medicine to implement an evidence-based QI program in seven Australian palliative care services.
objectiveTo evaluate clinicians' experiences implementing QI projects through the Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise (SPHERE)-Stanford Medicine Collaborative QI Program and identify barriers and facilitators influencing successful implementation.
participantsTwenty-five participants were interviewed, including team leaders, team members, mentors, and a service director from seven participating teams. APPROACH: Teams completed a 6-month structured QI curriculum combining virtual workshops, a 2-day in-person intensive, and ongoing mentor support. Semi-structured interviews explored experiences with QI capacity building and implementation. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, qualitative content analysis identified determinants of implementation success. KEY
resultsThe program developed clinicians' QI knowledge and confidence, enabling teams to identify root causes of service challenges, design targeted interventions, and achieve meaningful improvements, including increased palliative care referrals, enhanced care integration, and more consistent documentation practices. Multidisciplinary collaboration, strong team cohesion, and dedicated mentorship were central facilitators. Executive sponsorship and proactive communication promoted stakeholder buy-in and supported adoption of new practices. Key barriers included varying service models, limited resources, workforce turnover, and insufficient awareness of palliative care across partnering services. Despite these challenges, participants viewed the program as a catalyst for ongoing QI work and identified opportunities for scaling and sharing outcomes.
conclusionsThe program strengthened QI capability within Australian palliative care services, generating transferable solutions to improve equity, access, and service quality. Further work is needed to support sustainability, disseminate learning, and expand QI capacity across the broader palliative care sector.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834274What 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.