Victoria Howell1, Amanda Eva Schwartz2, James Daniel O'Leary1, Conor Mc Donnell1. 1. Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SQUIRE (Standards of QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines were developed to improve the reporting of quality improvement (QI) projects. The effect of the guidelines on the completeness of reporting in the QI literature is unknown. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to determine if the completeness of reporting in the QI literature has been improved[OUP_CE13] since the introduction of the SQUIRE guidelines. METHODS: We performed a before-and-after evaluation of QI articles selected from four prominent journals of healthcare quality. Twenty-five articles published in each of two time periods (2006-2008 and 2010-2011) were confirmed to be QI projects using a standardised definition and were independently evaluated by two investigators as an interim evaluation of a planned larger sample. Articles were assessed using 50 statements of the SQUIRE guidelines, and the overall change in the completeness of reporting between the two groups was determined. The value of p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in characteristics. There was no significant difference in the mean (SD) number of SQUIRE statements completed by authors before and after publication of the SQUIRE guidelines, 20.2 (5.0) versus 20.4 (7.0), p=0.9. The study was stopped early due to the absence of any significant trend in the completeness of reporting. DISCUSSION: There was no overall improvement observed in the completeness of reporting of QI projects after the publication of the SQUIRE guidelines, and the study was stopped early. There is potential for improvement in reporting standards, particularly for those guideline items or statements specific to QI projects. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: The SQUIRE (Standards of QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines were developed to improve the reporting of quality improvement (QI) projects. The effect of the guidelines on the completeness of reporting in the QI literature is unknown. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to determine if the completeness of reporting in the QI literature has been improved[OUP_CE13] since the introduction of the SQUIRE guidelines. METHODS: We performed a before-and-after evaluation of QI articles selected from four prominent journals of healthcare quality. Twenty-five articles published in each of two time periods (2006-2008 and 2010-2011) were confirmed to be QI projects using a standardised definition and were independently evaluated by two investigators as an interim evaluation of a planned larger sample. Articles were assessed using 50 statements of the SQUIRE guidelines, and the overall change in the completeness of reporting between the two groups was determined. The value of p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in characteristics. There was no significant difference in the mean (SD) number of SQUIRE statements completed by authors before and after publication of the SQUIRE guidelines, 20.2 (5.0) versus 20.4 (7.0), p=0.9. The study was stopped early due to the absence of any significant trend in the completeness of reporting. DISCUSSION: There was no overall improvement observed in the completeness of reporting of QI projects after the publication of the SQUIRE guidelines, and the study was stopped early. There is potential for improvement in reporting standards, particularly for those guideline items or statements specific to QI projects. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens Journal: J Nurs Care Qual Date: 2016 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 1.597
Authors: Catherine Hu; Jie Yi Wang; Zoe El Helou; Muhammad Taaha Hassan; Zheng Jing Hu; Gerhard Fusch; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Salhab El Helou; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2021-06
Authors: Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Susan H Wootton; Sean C Blackwell; George Saade; Pamela D Berens; Maria Hutchinson; Charles E Green; Sujatha Sridhar; Kara M Elam; Jon E Tyson Journal: AJP Rep Date: 2018-08-28