Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul 24;8(3):e000701.
doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000701. eCollection 2019.

Identifying and resolving the frustrations of reviewing the improvement literature: The experiences of two improvement researchers

Affiliations

Identifying and resolving the frustrations of reviewing the improvement literature: The experiences of two improvement researchers

Emma Jones et al. BMJ Open Qual. .

Abstract

Background and aims: Summarising quality improvement (QI) research through systematic literature review has great potential to improve patient care. However, heterogeneous terminology, poor definition of QI concepts and overlap with other scientific fields can make it hard to identify and extract data from relevant literature. This report examines the compromises and pragmatic decisions that undertaking literature review in the field of QI requires and the authors propose recommendations for literature review authors in similar fields.

Methods: Two authors (EJ and JF) provide a reflective account of their experiences of conducting a systematic literature review in the field of QI. They draw on wider literature to justify the decisions they made and propose recommendations to improve the literature review process. A third collaborator, (WC) co-created the paper challenging author's EJ and JF views and perceptions of the problems and solutions of conducting a review of literature in QI.

Results: Two main challenges were identified when conducting a review in QI. These were defining QI and selecting QI studies. Strategies to overcome these problems include: select a multi-disciplinary authorship team; review the literature to identify published QI search strategies, QI definitions and QI taxonomies; Contact experts in related fields to clarify whether a paper meets inclusion criteria; keep a reflective account of decision making; submit the protocol to a peer reviewed journal for publication.

Conclusions: The QI community should work together as a whole to create a scientific field with a shared vision of QI to enable accurate identification of QI literature. Our recommendations could be helpful for systematic reviewers wishing to evaluate complex interventions in both QI and related fields.

Keywords: complexity; continuous quality improvement; quality improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dixon-Woods M, Martin GP. Does quality improvement improve quality? Future Hosp J 2016;3:191–4. 10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Koetsier A, van der Veer SN, Jager KJ, et al. . Control charts in healthcare quality improvement. A systematic review on adherence to methodological criteria. Methods Inf Med 2012;51:189–98. 10.3414/ME11-01-0055 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Powell AE, Rushmer RK, Davies HT. A systematic narrative review of quality improvement models in health care In: NHS quality improvement Scotland, 2009.
    1. Steinman MA, Ranji SR, Shojania KG, et al. . Improving antibiotic selection: a systematic review and quantitative analysis of quality improvement strategies. Med Care 2006;44:617–28. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000215846.25591.22 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Portela MC, Pronovost PJ, Woodcock T, et al. . How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:325–36. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003620 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources