Can evidence-based medicine and clinical quality improvement learn from each other?

The considerable gap between what we know from research and what is done in clinical practice is well known. Proposed responses include the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Clinical Quality Improvement. EBM has focused more on ‘doing the right things’—based on external research evidence—whereas Quality Improvement (QI) has focused more on ‘doing things right’—based on local processes. However, these are complementary and in combination direct us how to ‘do the right things right’. This article examines the differences and similarities in the two approaches and proposes that by integrating the bedside application, the methodological development and the training of these complementary disciplines both would gain

Publication Guidelines for Quality Improvement Studies in Health Care: Evolution of the SQUIRE Project

In 2005 we published draft guidelines for reporting studies of quality improvement interventions as the initial step in a consensus process for development of a more definitive version. The current article contains the revised version, which we refer to as SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence). We describe the consensus process, which included informal feedback, formal written commentaries, input from publication guideline developers, review of the literature on the epistemology of improvement and on methods for evaluating complex social programs, and a meeting of stakeholders for critical review of the guidelines’ content and wording, followed by commentary on sequential versions from an expert consultant group. Finally, we examine major differences between SQUIRE and the initial draft, and consider limitations of and unresolved questions about SQUIRE; we also describe ancillary supporting documents and alternative versions under development, and plans for dissemination, testing, and further development of SQUIRE

SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) : Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process

Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org). © Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited

Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0 : revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process

Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this article, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org)

Educational System Factors That Engage Resident Physicians in an Integrated Quality Improvement Curriculum at a VA Hospital:A Realist Evaluation

Purpose Learning about quality improvement (QI) in resident physician training is often relegated to elective or noncore clinical activities. The authors integrated teaching, learning, and doing QI into the routine clinical work of inpatient internal medicine teams at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital. This study describes the design factors that facilitated and inhibited the integration of a QI curriculum-including real QI work-into the routine work of inpatient internal medicine teams. Method A realist evaluation framework used three data sources: field notes from QI faculty; semistructured interviews with resident physicians; and a group interview with QI faculty and staff. From April 2011 to July 2012, resident physician teams at the White River Junction VA Medical Center used the Model for Improvement for their QI work and analyzed data using statistical process control charts. Results Three domains affected the delivery of the QI curriculum and engagement of residents in QI work: setting, learner, and teacher. The constant presence of the QI material on a public space in the team workroom was a facilitating mechanism in the setting. Explicit sign-out of QI work to the next resident team formalized the handoff in the learner domain. QI teachers who were respected clinical leaders with QI expertise provided role modeling and local system knowledge. Conclusions Integrating QI teaching into the routine clinical and educational systems of an inpatient service is challenging. Identifiable, concrete strategies in the setting, learner, and teacher domains helped integrate QI into the clinical and educational systems