BMJ Open Quality最新文献

{"title":"Communication failures and racial disparities in inpatient maternity care: a qualitative content analysis of incident reports.","authors":"Rebecca Clark, Tamar Klaiman, Kathy Sliwinski, Rebecca Hamm, Emilia Flores","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003112","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and mortality disproportionality affect Black women in the USA. Communication failures are a leading cause of poor maternal outcomes. We examined incident reports to identify communication failures within inpatient maternity care and racial disparities therein.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed de-identified incident reports submitted by hospital staff working on antepartum, labour and birth, and postpartum in an urban, academic hospital between 2019 and 2022. Reports were linked to electronic health records to capture race and SMM outcome. We conducted qualitative content analyses using a constant comparative method and an inductive and deductive approach. We explored communication failures by race/ethnicity and SMM outcome. In vivo themes included equity and positive communication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 541 communication failures within a random sample (n=1006) of incident reports across the study period. Black women represented 28% of births during this time, but 38% of the incident reports. Most of the communication failures occurred within the healthcare team rather than with patients. Communication failures were, broadly, contextual (eg, audience, who was present), conceptual (eg, lack of shared understanding) or sociotechnical (eg, computer-human interface). Of the incident reports coded as contextual failures, errors of omission were the most common. Most conceptual failures were a lack of shared understanding. Sociotechnical failures were predominantly workflow and communication and internal organisational features.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that if we want to address communication failures as a root cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, we need to focus on the quality of communication within the healthcare team. These efforts should concentrate on decreasing omission and building shared understanding of responsibilities and processes, especially when teams are caring for Black women.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143571982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Utilisation of a cocreation methodology to develop claims-based indicators for feedback on implementation of comparative effectiveness research results into practice.","authors":"Vera de Weerdt, Hanna Willems, Geeske Hofstra, Sjoerd Repping, Xander Koolman, Eric van der Hijden","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002542","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Comparative effectiveness research (CER) often fails to create quality improvement since implementation of CER results in clinical practice is lacking. Claims-based Audit & Feedback (A&F) provides a resource efficient tool to stimulate implementation, but it is unknown whether medical professionals accept claims-based A&F in the context of CER. Therefore, in this study, we developed claims-based indicators using a cocreation approach and evaluated medical professionals' perception regarding the validity and acceptability of these indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between July 2019 and November 2021, we used a cocreation approach with medical experts to develop claims-based indicators for six CER trials. The aim is to use the indicators for group level feedback on implementation of CER results to medical professionals across all healthcare providers in the Netherlands. To build the indicators, we used the most recent available Dutch national healthcare-related claims data of the year 2017. The cocreation process consisted of the following steps: (1) defining the target indicator, (2) selecting relevant claims codes, (3) testing feasibility of the indicators using Dutch claims data, (4) discussing results of feasibility testing and (5) defining the final indicators and reflecting on the acceptability of the indicators for feedback on implementation of CER results by the experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Claims-based indicators could not perfectly reflect the CER population for any of the six CER trials. However, the cocreation process did lead to a final indicator that medical experts found acceptable in four of six cases. Recommendations of medical experts for improving claims-based indicators included: select patients with minimal over- or underestimation of the CER population, use proxies to identify patients, determine incidence rather than prevalence for chronic conditions and use data linkage with diagnostic test results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A cocreation approach was a successful way to develop claims-based indicators on implementation of CER results, which were imperfect, but in some cases still acceptable as feedback to medical experts. Thus, for certain topics, claims data may provide a resource efficient data source for A&F interventions aiming to implement CER trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143571983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient satisfaction in virtual upper-limb orthopaedic clinics: a retrospective review.","authors":"Xander van Heerden, Charissa Jansen, Alex Price, Petr Jemelik","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002938","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002938","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic halted elective orthopaedic surgeries, necessitating alternative consultation methods. Virtual consultations emerged as a solution to manage elective waiting lists for conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome, stenosing tenosynovitis and Dupuytren's contractures. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and patient satisfaction of virtual consultations in an upper-limb orthopaedic clinic.</p><p><strong>Local problem: </strong>Elective waiting lists for conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome, stenosing tenosynovitis and Dupuytren's contractures increased significantly, requiring alternative consultation methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Virtual Upper-Limb Clinic was composed of a virtual consultation, which included a focused history and examination. If there is uncertainty of diagnosis or a lack of appropriate examination findings at that time, the patient would then be booked into an in-person clinic for further assessment.If the virtual examination demonstrated marked pathology, surgical treatment would be proposed. Patients accepting surgical management were assessed and diagnosed formally on the day of surgery, followed by another virtual consultation postoperatively. The aim of this study is to demonstrate overall advantages and patient experiences of the virtual clinic. Data were collected in a retrospective manner using an improvised questionnaire based on the Telehealth Satisfaction Scale.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients received focused history and examination assessments via video consultation. Surgical treatment was carried out electively if required, followed by a postoperative virtual review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty patients were included, predominantly female, with an average age of 57.48 years. Diagnoses included 25 carpal tunnel cases, 15 trigger fingers, two ganglion cysts and eight Dupuytren's contractures. Ninety-six per cent of patients were satisfied with the virtual service, citing reduced travel costs and convenience. However, only 54% preferred virtual consultations preoperatively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Virtual upper-limb orthopaedic clinics provide a safe, cost-effective and satisfactory alternative to in-person care. However, preferences varied, underscoring the need for a hybrid model integrating virtual and in-person consultations based on clinical and patient needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143565899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reducing caesarean section rates in Robson groups 1 and 3: a quality improvement initiative in a private Brazilian hospital.","authors":"Mario Macoto Kondo, Vera Denise de Toledo Leme, Daniela Cristina da Silva Carvalho, Lissandra Borba da Cunha, Elaine Galvão, Andreia Fratoni Ledo, Monica M Siaulys, Ana Pilar Betran, Maria Regina Torloni","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003077","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003077","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Private Brazilian hospitals have one of the highest caesarean section (CS) rates in the world. Caesareans may have short- and long-term implications for the health of mothers and babies. The primary objective of this project was to assess the effects of an intrapartum quality improvement (QI) initiative on CS rates and on maternal/perinatal outcomes. A bundle targeted at internal healthcare providers (HCP) on-duty in the labour and delivery (LD) ward of a private Brazilian hospital was created in 2020 (first period) and implemented in 2021-2022 (second period). External HCPs managing their own private patients served as a control group. The bundle focused on improving intrapartum care in women without previous CS in spontaneous labour with single cephalic pregnancies at term (Robson groups 1 and 3). The bundle included a collaborative midwifery-obstetrician intrapartum model of care, a new LD ward medical coordinator, daily supportive supervision, updated LD guidelines and internal HCP refresher training on teamwork and intrapartum care. We analysed changes in outcomes between the two periods and the two HCP teams. The analyses included data on 24 414 women who gave birth (≥500 g) over a 30-month period.Among women managed by internal HCPs, there was a 32% relative decrease in Robson-1 CS rates (65.7% vs 44.6%, first vs second period, relative rate ratio (RRR)=0.68, p<0.0001), a 43% relative decrease in Robson-3 CS rates (25.4% vs 14.5%, RRR=0.57, p=0.007) and an 11% relative decrease in the overall CS rates (82.7% vs 73.8%, RRR=0.89, p<0.0001). There were no significant changes in adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes nor in maternal satisfaction (primary outcomes), in Robson-1 and 3 groups managed by internal HCPs.In summary, an intrapartum care QI initiative was associated with a safe reduction of CS rates in Robson-1 and 3 women managed by on-duty HCPs in a private Brazilian hospital.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881182/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143555829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"COVID-19 advocacy bias in the <i>BMJ</i>: meta-research evaluation.","authors":"Kasper P Kepp, Ioana Cristea, Taulant Muka, John P A Ioannidis","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003131","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003131","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, <i>BMJ</i>, a leading journal on evidence-based medicine worldwide, published many views by advocates of specific COVID-19 policies. We aimed to evaluate the presence and potential bias of this advocacy.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>Scopus was searched for items published until 13 April 2024 on 'COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2'. <i>BMJ</i> publication numbers and types before (2016-2019) and during (2020-2023) the pandemic were compared for a group of advocates favouring aggressive measures (leaders of both indieSAGE and the Vaccines-Plus initiative) and four control groups: leading members of the governmental SAGE, UK-based key signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) (favouring more restricted measures), highly cited UK scientists and UK scientists who published the highest number of COVID-19-related papers across science (n=16 in each group).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>122 authors published >5 COVID-19-related items each in <i>BMJ</i>: 18 were leading members/signatories of aggressive measures advocacy groups publishing 231 COVID-19-related <i>BMJ</i> documents, 53 were editors, journalists or regular columnists and 51 scientists were not identified as associated with any advocacy. Of 41 authors with >10 publications in <i>BMJ</i>, 8 were scientists advocating for aggressive measures, 7 were editors, 23 were journalists or regular columnists and only 3 were non-advocate scientists. Some aggressive measures advocates already had strong <i>BMJ</i> presence prepandemic. During pandemic years, the studied indieSAGE/Vaccines-Plus advocates outperformed in <i>BMJ</i> presence leading SAGE members by 16.0-fold, UK-based GBD advocates by 64.2-fold, the most-cited scientists by 16.0-fold and the authors who published most COVID-19 papers overall by 10.7-fold. The difference was driven mainly by short opinion pieces and analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong><i>BMJ</i> had a strong bias in favour of authors advocating an aggressive approach to COVID-19 mitigation. Advocacy bias may influence public opinion and policy decisions and should be mitigated in future health crises in favour of open and balanced debate of different policy options.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877234/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143540165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Electronic pharmaceutical record for best possible medication history at preoperative evaluation to prevent postoperative adverse events: a quasi-experimental study.","authors":"Claire Chapuis, Jean-Luc Bosson, Jean-Didier Bardet, Marion Lepelley, Dimitri Sourd, Matthieu Roustit, Benoit Allenet, Sébastien Chanoine, Pierre Albaladejo, Pierrick Bedouch","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003022","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003022","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Access to reliable data about patient's medications before surgery represents a challenge for reducing the risk of postoperative adverse events (AE) potentially related to preoperative treatment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact on AE of a nationwide ambulatory electronic pharmaceutical record (EPR) used by a pharmacist for best possible medication history (BPMH), associated with the preoperative evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This quasi-experimental comparative interventional study included 750 adult patients with an available EPR, admitted to the preoperative clinic for elective orthopaedic surgery, between April 2014 and April 2017. Data analysis was completed in September 2022. In the intervention group, a pharmacist performed the BPMH using the EPR, before the patient's medical evaluation. In the control group, there was conventional preoperative evaluation. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one AE collected by using the trigger tool method, within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the number of medications reported in the medical record and the number of patients with at least one documented adverse drug event (ADE) by an independent committee within 30 days after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1924 patients admitted to the preoperative clinic, 750 patients who had a record (39%) were included (153 (41%) men; median age 61 (49-71 and 50-70) years in both groups), 375 in each group. There was a 29% reduction in the proportion of patients with at least one AE in the intervention group (110/374 patients (29%) with 165 AE vs 156/372 patients (42%) with 233 AE) (OR 0.58 (0.43-0.78), p<0.01). There were significantly more drugs reported on the medical record in the intervention group (3 (1-5) vs 2 (1-4), p<0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients with ADE (71/374 patients (19%) with 96 ADE vs 80/372 patients (22%) with 108 ADE, p=0.44).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>A BPMH performed by a pharmacist using a nationwide EPR at the time of preoperative evaluation contributed to reducing AE, potentially preventing harm to patients.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT02071472.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877192/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143540166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Continuity of care in a pandemic: an observational study in GP-centred healthcare in Germany.","authors":"Gunter Laux, Michel Wensing, Attila Altiner, Ruediger Leutgeb","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002944","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002944","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuity of care (COC) refers to the sustained quality of healthcare over time and is a central element of effective general practice. High levels of COC have been associated with improved health outcomes, including reduced risks of hospitalisation. Previous research demonstrated that participation in Germany's \"general practitioner-centred healthcare\" (GPCHC) programme, designed to strengthen general practice care, led to higher COC. Furthermore, higher COC was independently linked to decreased risks of hospitalisations, including rehospitalisations and avoidable admissions. This study aimed to investigate whether the benefits of COC for GPCHC patients persisted in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with 2019, the year preceding the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An observational study was conducted in Germany using data from a health insurance database. The study included two patient cohorts: those enrolled in the GPCHC programme (n=1 049 910) and those not enrolled in GPCHC (n=537 759) for both 2019 and 2020. The analysis compared three measures of COC-Usual Provider Index, Herfindahl Index and Sequential Continuity Index-adjusted for patient characteristics. Longitudinal multivariable regression models were employed to evaluate differences between the cohorts and assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on COC outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For GPCHC patients, COC in general practice was relevantly and significantly higher with respect to the three COC measures in 2019. We could observe the same advantage for GPCHC patients in 2020. Interestingly, for the SCI index, indicating the fraction of sequential encounter pairs at which the same provider is seen, we could observe that COC was even more advantageous for GPCHC patients in 2020 in comparison to 2019. Finally, we could observe that higher COC in 2019 was independently associated with decreased healthcare utilisation of the inpatient care sector in 2020.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a pandemic period in which healthcare is faced with new challenges, both for patients and healthcare providers, GPCHC was still associated with higher COC. The GPCHC programme and its contents are obviously better up to the requirements of the COC even in such a situation of pandemic-induced discontinuity.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877195/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143540164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient safety incident reporting systems and reporting practices in African healthcare organisations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Gelana Fekadu, Rachel Muir, Georgia Tobiano, Michael J Ireland, Melaku Tadege Engidaw, Andrea P Marshall","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003202","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003202","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient safety incident reporting and learning systems are crucial for improving the safety and quality of healthcare. However, comprehensive evidence of their availability and use in African healthcare organisations is lacking. Therefore, this review aims to synthesise the existing literature on these systems and reporting practices within African healthcare organisations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five electronic databases, including PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCOhost, Scopus, Web of Science and the Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), were searched to identify relevant records. Peer-reviewed articles and guidelines published in English were included in this review. Quality appraisal was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute and Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies tool. A random effects model was used to compute the pooled prevalence using Stata V.17.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A systematic search retrieved 9279 records, of which 39 (36 articles and 3 guidelines) were included in this review. Eight patient safety incident reporting and learning systems were identified, with compliance rates ranging from low (16%) to high (87%) based on the WHO criteria. The pooled prevalence of patient safety incident reporting practices was 48% (95% CI 40% to 56%). However, the studies exhibited high heterogeneity (I²=98.75%, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In African healthcare organisations, it is imperative to establish robust patient safety incident reporting and learning systems, as none of the existing systems fully meet WHO criteria. In addition, optimising the existing systems and encouraging healthcare professionals to improve reporting practices will enhance patient safety and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023455168.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11865795/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143514547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Concept analysis of health research translation nomenclature.","authors":"Lucylynn Lizarondo, Zoe Jordan, Ecushla Linedale, Craig Lockwood","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002904","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002904","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Translating health research into clinical practice is a complex process aimed at enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. The terminology surrounding this process is varied and often used interchangeably, leading to minimal consensus on the activities encompassed by each term.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to examine existing taxonomies and websites for operational definitions related to health research translation, culminating in a comprehensive synopsis of terms specific to this field.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In 2019, a literature search was conducted using databases such as PubMed and CINAHL, along with relevant government and non-governmental organisation (NGO) websites, including grey literature. The search focused on English-language publications defining health research translation from 2000 onward and was updated in 2023. One author conducted the search, employing a mix of free-text and database-specific terms. Two authors independently evaluated the results for inclusion. Relevant data were extracted to aid in sorting and prioritising terminology based on frequency. A concept analysis approach, developed by Foley and Davis and informed by Rodgers' seven phases, was used to map the nomenclature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 51 papers were analysed, revealing that the most frequently used terms for health research translation were knowledge translation (KT), implementation and translational research. Both evidence-based healthcare and KT describe the process of integrating evidence into practice, positioning them as analogous. Two major domains were identified: practice and science, with practice-related language further categorised into people-focused, process-focused and outcome-focused.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This paper presents a conceptual nomenclature map that serves as a foundation for developing a consensus-driven ontology for health research translation. The framework highlights how language can be categorised into common domains, fostering meaningful communication across diverse groups and entities.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11865793/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143514529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Key clinical findings from the IMPROVE-UK quality improvement projects: an overview.","authors":"Andrew James Phillips, Rebecca Bowen, Mary Wells, Iain McNeish, Sudha Sundar","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002902","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002902","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Survival from ovarian cancer in the UK is poor compared with international comparators. The Ovarian Cancer Audit Feasibility Pilot demonstrated variation in 1-year and 5-year survival across the UK as well as significant variation in treatment rates. In 2020, IMPROVE-UK was established as the first major programme to address inequalities in ovarian cancer management and survival across the UK, to develop a legacy of best practice sharing across the country and to establish and evaluate quality improvement projects that could drive care at scale.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following a competitive process, seven quality improvement projects were funded to address inequalities in care and identify strategies to improve and equalise survival rates for all women with ovarian cancer in the UK, to address health inequalities from geography, age or ethnicity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Projects addressed the secondary care diagnostic pathway, genomic testing, prehabilitation and improving treatment-related decision-making, particularly decisions for surgery. All seven projects at least partial achieved their aims with numerous areas across all projects identified where processes could be refined and incorporated into standard care to improve outcomes of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Dissemination of information regarding best practice has been undertaken.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IMPROVE-UK was the first programme of its kind addressing significant inequalities of care in women with ovarian cancer. We demonstrate systematic quality improvement projects in ovarian cancer targeting various aspects of the treatment journey. Scaling up the results of the improve UK pilots is likely to improve survival in the UK and potentially internationally.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 Suppl 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143498822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}