BACKGROUND: Stakeholders in quality improvement agree on the need for augmenting and synthesising the scientific literature supporting it. The diversity of perspectives, approaches, and contexts critical to advancing quality improvement science, however, creates challenges. The paper explores the heterogeneity in clinical quality improvement intervention (QII) publications. METHODS: A preliminary classification framework was developed for QII articles, aiming for categories homogeneous enough to support coherent scientific discussion on QII reporting standards and facilitate systematic review. QII experts were asked to identify articles important to QII science. The framework was tested and revised by applying it to the article set. The final framework screened articles into (1) empirical literature on development and testing of QIIs; (2) QII stories, theories, and frameworks; (3) QII literature syntheses and meta-analyses; or (4) development and testing of QII-related tools. To achieve homogeneity, category (1) required division into (1a) development of QIIs; 1(b) history, documentation, or description of QIIs; or (1c) success, effectiveness or impact of QIIs. RESULTS: By discussing unique issues and established standards relevant to each category, QII stakeholders can advance QII practice and science, including the scope and conduct of systematic literature reviews.
BACKGROUND: Stakeholders in quality improvement agree on the need for augmenting and synthesising the scientific literature supporting it. The diversity of perspectives, approaches, and contexts critical to advancing quality improvement science, however, creates challenges. The paper explores the heterogeneity in clinical quality improvement intervention (QII) publications. METHODS: A preliminary classification framework was developed for QII articles, aiming for categories homogeneous enough to support coherent scientific discussion on QII reporting standards and facilitate systematic review. QII experts were asked to identify articles important to QII science. The framework was tested and revised by applying it to the article set. The final framework screened articles into (1) empirical literature on development and testing of QIIs; (2) QII stories, theories, and frameworks; (3) QII literature syntheses and meta-analyses; or (4) development and testing of QII-related tools. To achieve homogeneity, category (1) required division into (1a) development of QIIs; 1(b) history, documentation, or description of QIIs; or (1c) success, effectiveness or impact of QIIs. RESULTS: By discussing unique issues and established standards relevant to each category, QII stakeholders can advance QII practice and science, including the scope and conduct of systematic literature reviews.
Authors: Susanne Hempel; Lisa V Rubenstein; Roberta M Shanman; Robbie Foy; Su Golder; Marjorie Danz; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Sean M O'Neill; Susanne Hempel; Yee-Wei Lim; Marjorie S Danz; Robbie Foy; Marika J Suttorp; Paul G Shekelle; Lisa V Rubenstein Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2011-07-04 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Lisa Rubenstein; Dmitry Khodyakov; Susanne Hempel; Margie Danz; Susanne Salem-Schatz; Robbie Foy; Sean O'Neill; Siddhartha Dalal; Paul Shekelle Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Heather Colquhoun; Jennifer Leeman; Susan Michie; Cynthia Lokker; Peter Bragge; Susanne Hempel; K Ann McKibbon; Gjalt-Jorn Y Peters; Kathleen R Stevens; Michael G Wilson; Jeremy Grimshaw Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 7.327