↓ Skip to main content

Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Quality & Safety, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
133 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review
Published in
BMJ Quality & Safety, October 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006926
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Wells, Orly Tamir, Jonathon Gray, Dhevaksha Naidoo, Mark Bekhit, Don Goldmann

Abstract

Quality improvement collaboratives (QIC) have proliferated internationally, but there is little empirical evidence for their effectiveness. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library databases from January 1995 to December 2014. Studies were included if they met the criteria for a QIC intervention and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) minimum study design characteristics for inclusion in a review. We assessed study bias using the EPOC checklist and the quality of the reported intervention using a subset of SQUIRE 1.0 standards. Of the 220 studies meeting QIC criteria, 64 met EPOC study design standards for inclusion. There were 10 cluster randomised controlled trials, 24 controlled before-after studies and 30 interrupted time series studies. QICs encompassed a broad range of clinical settings, topics and populations ranging from neonates to the elderly. Few reports fully described QIC implementation and methods, intensity of activities, degree of site engagement and important contextual factors. By care setting, an improvement was reported for one or more of the study's primary effect measures in 83% of the studies (32/39 (82%) hospital based, 17/20 (85%) ambulatory care, 3/4 nursing home and a sole ambulance QIC). Eight studies described persistence of the intervention effect 6 months to 2 years after the end of the collaborative. Collaboratives reporting success generally addressed relatively straightforward aspects of care, had a strong evidence base and noted a clear evidence-practice gap in an accepted clinical pathway or guideline. QICs have been adopted widely as an approach to shared learning and improvement in healthcare. Overall, the QICs included in this review reported significant improvements in targeted clinical processes and patient outcomes. These reports are encouraging, but most be interpreted cautiously since fewer than a third met established quality and reporting criteria, and publication bias is likely.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 133 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Researcher 19 11%
Other 19 11%
Other 40 24%
Unknown 24 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Unspecified 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 36 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2019.
All research outputs
#187,941
of 14,098,131 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#126
of 1,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,565
of 317,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#5
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,098,131 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.