Search

In 2005, draft guidelines were published for reporting studies of quality improvement 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 Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE). This narrative progress report summarizes the special features of improvement that are reflected in SQUIRE and describes major differences between SQUIRE and the initial draft guidelines. It also explains the development process, which included formulation of responses to informal feedback, written commentaries, and input from publication guideline developers; ongoing review of the literature on the epistemology of improvement and 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, the report discusses limitations of and unresolved questions about SQUIRE; ancillary supporting documents and alternative versions under development; and plans for dissemination, testing, and further development of SQUIRE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Because practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) is a core competency for residents, the fundamentals of PBLI should be developed in medical school. Purpose: Evaluate the effects of a PBLI module for 1st-year students at Dartmouth Medical School in 2004-05. Methods: Design. Randomized two-group trial (early and late intervention). Intervention. One half of students received the standard curriculum-reviewing student-patient-preceptor reports with their small-group facilitator and student colleagues. The other half received the PBLI-DMEDS module-reviewing student-patient-preceptor reports and applying PBLI methods to history and physical exam skills. Analysis. The module was assessed on (a) core learning of PBLI (pre- and postmodule); (b) student self-assessed proficiency in PBLI (pre- and postmodule); (c) student, faculty, and course leaders' satisfaction; and (d) time costs. Results: Pretest PBLI knowledge scores were similar in both groups; intervention students scored significantly higher after the PBLI-DMEDS module. Satisfaction of students, faculty, and course leaders was mixed. The time cost required to implement the module was excessive. Conclusions: The intervention effectively taught the basics of PBLI but did not integrate well into the core curriculum. Our multifaceted evaluation approach allowed us to amplify aspects of the intervention that worked well and discard those that did not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: With increased incorporation of simulation-based methodologies into quality improvement activities, standards for reporting on simulation-specific elements in healthcare improvement research are needed., Methods: We followed established consensus process methodology to iteratively create simulation-based extensions for SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines. Initial steps involved forming a steering committee, defining the scope, and conducting premeeting activities with an expert panel of simulation and quality improvement researchers. Recommendations from the expert panel were brought to a consensus meeting where existing guidelines were reviewed and recommendations made. Steering Committee members reviewed all recommendations, reconciled differences, and made final recommendations, which were piloted by experienced simulation and quality improvement researchers., Results: Fifteen Steering Committee members, 59 experts in simulation and quality improvement research, and 86 consensus meeting attendees reviewed SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines and ultimately recommended simulation-based reporting guidelines for 22 of the 41 (54%) SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Those items for which simulation-based extensions were identified were: Notes to Authors, 1 (Title), 2a (Abstract), 2b (Abstract), 4 (Introduction: Available knowledge), 5 (Introduction: Rationale), 7 and 8a & b (Methods: Context and intervention), 9a (Methods - Study of the intervention), 9b (Methods - Study of the intervention), 10a (Methods - Measures), 10b (Methods-Measures), 10c (Methods-Measures), 11b (Methods- Analysis), 12 (Methods - Ethical considerations), 13a (Results), 13e (Results), 14b (Discussion - Summary), 15a-e (Discussion - Interpretation), 16a (Discussion - Limitations), 16b (Discussion - Limitations), 17c (Discussion - Conclusions), and 17d (Discussion - Conclusions)., Conclusions: We created simulation-based extensions to SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines to improve the quality and standardization of reporting on simulation-specific elements of healthcare improvement research., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Simulation in Healthcare.)

Background: Improving quality and safety is a goal in health care, and sharing quality improvement (QI) work with internal and external audiences is key to spreading knowledge and ideas for change. Peer-reviewed journals are interested in manuscripts reporting QI work., Methodology: Although QI work is methodologically different from traditionally published research articles, it can be publishable if conducted in a way that is scholarly and well-planned. The authors suggest that key strategies to producing publishable, scholarly improvement work exist within two broad categories: rigorous work and compelling writing. Rigorous improvement work includes the following four key components: (1) understanding baseline processes, (2) developing a solid methodology and measurement plan, (3) analyzing and describing context, and (4) clearly explaining the intervention. Creating compelling writing includes clear team expectations that are defined early in the process, including authorship and division of the work. The team should identify a journal early in the process and follow a clear plan for team writing that includes an outline and frequent feedback., Conclusion: Elements of rigorous QI work and compelling writing align to develop strong material for publishing scholarly QI work., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has long been taught to physician trainees for critical appraisal of research manuscripts. There is no parallel or similar framework to guide trainees in the appraisal of quality improvement (QI) literature., Objective: To adapt existing guidelines of QI manuscript reporting into an educational QI-EBM appraisal tool to help residents distinguish research and QI manuscripts, assess QI designs and methodologies, and evaluate QI manuscripts' strengths and weaknesses., Methods: Between 2018 and 2021, we developed a QI-EBM critical appraisal tool (QI-EBM-CAT) and performed 3 plan-do-study-act cycles to refine the tool based on JAMA and SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. We then surveyed residents regarding the usefulness of the tool and their confidence in evaluating QI manuscripts before and after completing a QI-EBM workshop using the QI appraisal tool., Results: Sixty-six of 74 internal medicine postgraduate year (PGY)-1 to PGY-3 residents (89.2%) completed the workshop and assessment surveys in 2021. The workshop was found to be moderately to very useful by 85.1% (63 of 74) of residents as a framework for QI manuscript critical analysis. The summary confidence score in QI manuscript critical appraisal improved from a 64% rating of moderately to very confident in the pre-period to 94.6% in the post-period ( P <.001) with statistical improvements in all 5 confidence areas assessed ( P <.001)., Conclusions: The QI-EBM-CAT, designed to teach residents how to critically assess QI manuscripts using EBM principles, resulted in subjective improvements in confidence of QI manuscript analysis., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Misalignment of measures, measurement and analysis with the goals and methods of quality improvement efforts in healthcare may create confusion and decrease effectiveness. In healthcare, measurement is used for accountability, research, and quality improvement, so distinguishing between these is an important first step. Using a case vignette, this paper focuses on using measurement for improvement to gain insight into the dynamic nature of healthcare systems and to assess the impact of interventions. This involves an understanding of the variation in the data over time. Statistical process control (SPC) charting is an effective and powerful analysis tool for this. SPC provides ongoing assessment of system functioning and enables an improvement team to assess the impact of its own interventions and external forces on the system. Once improvement work is completed, the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines is a valuable tool to describe the rationale, context, and study of the interventions. SQUIRE can be used to plan improvement work as well as structure a manuscript for publication in peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: I am a co-author and receive royalties from the publisher for the textbook 'Fundamentals of Health Care Improvement' which is cited in this article., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Despite the significant impact diet has on health, there is minimal nutrition training for medical students. This review summarizes published nutrition learning experiences in US medical schools and makes recommendations accordingly. Of 902 articles, 29 met inclusion criteria, describing 30 learning experiences. Nutrition learning experiences were described as integrated curricula or courses (n = 10, 33%), sessions (n = 17, 57%), or electives (n = 3, 10%). There was heterogeneity in the teaching and assessment methods utilized. The most common was lecture (n = 21, 70%), often assessed through pre- and/or postsurveys (n = 19, 79%). Six studies (26%) provided experience outcomes through objective measures, such as exam or standardized patient experience scores, after the nutrition learning experience. This review revealed sparse and inconsistent data on nutrition learning experiences. However, based on the extant literature, medical schools should build formal nutrition objectives, identify faculty and physician leadership in nutrition education, utilize preexisting resources, and create nutrition learning experiences that can be applied to clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Life Sciences Institute. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In 2016, Batalden et al proposed a coproduction model for health care services. Starting from the argument that health care services should demonstrate service-dominant rather than goods-dominant logic, they argued that health care outcomes are the result of the intricate interaction of the provider and patient in concert with the system, community, and, ultimately, society. The key notion is that the patient is as much an expert in determining outcomes as the provider, but with different expertise. Patients come to the table with expertise in their lived experiences and the context of their lives.The authors posit that education, like health care services, should follow a service-dominant logic. Like the relationship between patients and providers, the relationship between learner and teacher requires the integrated expertise of each nested in the context of their system, community, and society to optimize outcomes. The authors then argue that health professions learners cannot be educated in a traditional, paternalistic model of education and then expected to practice in a manner that prioritizes coproductive partnerships with colleagues, patients, and families. They stress the necessity of adapting the health care services coproduction model to health professions education. Instead of asking whether the coproduction model is possible in the current system, they argue that the current system is not sustainable and not producing the desired kind of clinicians.A current example from a longitudinal integrated clerkship highlights some possibilities with coproduced education. Finally, the authors offer some practical ways to begin changing from the traditional model. They thus provide a conceptual framework and ideas for practical implementation to move the educational model closer to the coproduction health care services model that many strive for and, through that alignment, to set the stage for improved health outcomes for all.

Current models of quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) education are not fully integrated with clinical care delivery, representing a major impediment toward achieving widespread QIPS competency among health professions learners and practitioners. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada organized a 2-day consensus conference in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, called Building the Bridge to Quality, in September 2016. Its goal was to convene an international group of educational and health system leaders, educators, frontline clinicians, learners, and patients to engage in a consensus-building process and generate a list of actionable strategies that individuals and organizations can use to better integrate QIPS education with clinical care.Four strategic directions emerged: prioritize the integration of QIPS education and clinical care, build structures and implement processes to integrate QIPS education and clinical care, build capacity for QIPS education at multiple levels, and align educational and patient outcomes to improve quality and patient safety. Individuals and organizations can refer to the specific tactics associated with the 4 strategic directions to create a road map of targeted actions most relevant to their organizational starting point.To achieve widespread change, collaborative efforts and alignment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators are needed on an international scale to shift the culture of educational and clinical environments and build bridges that connect training programs and clinical environments, align educational and health system priorities, and improve both learning and care, with the ultimate goal of achieving improved outcomes and experiences for patients, their families, and communities.

Problem: Identifying and processing medical errors are overlooked components of undergraduate medical education. Organizations and leaders advocate teaching medical students about patient safety and medical error, yet few feasible examples demonstrate how this teaching should occur. To provide students with familiarity in identifying, reporting, and analyzing medical errors, the authors developed the interactive patient safety reporting curriculum (PSRC), requiring clinical students to engage intellectually and emotionally with personally experienced events in which the safety of one of their patients was compromised., Approach: In 2015, the authors incorporated the PSRC into the third-year internal medicine clerkship. Students completed a structured written report, analyzing a patient safety incident they experienced. The report focused on severity of outcome, root cause(s) analysis, system-based prevention, and personal reflection. The report was bookended by 2 interactive, case-based sessions led by faculty with expertise in patient safety, quality improvement, and medical errors., Outcomes: Students accurately analyzed the severity of the outcome, and their reports directly led to 2 formal root cause analyses and 4 system-based improvements., Next Steps: The time- and resource-efficient PSRC allows students to apply patient safety knowledge to a medical error they experienced in a way that can directly affect care delivery. This model-interactive learning sessions coupled with engaging in a personally experienced case-can be implemented in various settings. Educators seeking to use student-experienced events for learning should not discount the emotional effects of those events on medical students.

Health system leaders are calling for reform of medical education programs to meet evolving needs of health systems. U.S. medical schools have initiated innovative curricula related to health systems science (HSS), which includes competencies in value-based care, population health, system improvement, interprofessional collaboration, and systems thinking. Successful implementation of HSS curricula is challenging because of the necessity for new curricular methods, assessments, and educators and for resource allocation. Perhaps most notable of these challenges, however, is students' mixed receptivity. Although many students are fully engaged, others are dissatisfied with curricular time dedicated to competencies not perceived as high yield. HSS learning can be viewed as "broccoli"-students may realize it is good for them in the long term, but it may not be palatable in the moment. Further analysis is necessary for accelerating change both locally and nationally.With over 11 years of experience in global HSS curricular reform in 2 medical schools and informed by the curricular implementation "performance gap," the authors explore student receptivity challenges, including marginalization of HSS coursework, infancy of the HSS field, relative nascence of curricula and educators, heterogeneity of pedagogies, tensions in students' perceptions of their professional role, and culture of HSS integration. The authors call for the reexamination of 5 issues influencing HSS receptivity: student recruitment processes, faculty development, building an HSS academic "home," evaluation metrics, and transparent collaboration between medical schools. To fulfill the social obligation of meeting patients' needs, educators must seek a shared understanding of underlying challenges of HSS innovations.

The SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines were published in 2015 to increase the completeness, precision, and transparency of published reports about efforts to improve the safety, value, and quality of health care. The principles and methods applied in work to improve health care are often applied in educational improvement as well. In 2016, a group was convened to develop an extension to SQUIRE that would meet the needs of the education community. This article describes the development of the SQUIRE-EDU extension over a three-year period and its key components. SQUIRE-EDU was developed using an international, interprofessional advisory group and face-to-face meeting to draft initial guidelines; pilot testing of a draft version with nine authors; and further revisions from the advisory panel with a public comment period. SQUIRE-EDU emphasizes three key components that define what is necessary in systematic efforts to improve the quality and value of health professions education. These are a description of the local educational gap; consideration of the impacts of educational improvement to patients, families, communities, and the health care system; and the fidelity of the iterations of the intervention. SQUIRE-EDU is intended for the many and complex range of methods used to improve education and education systems. These guidelines are projected to increase and standardize the sharing and spread of iterative innovations that have the potential to advance pedagogy and occur in specific contexts in health professions education.

While poor diet is the one of the primary contributors to death and disability in the USA, formal nutrition education in medical schools across the nation remains sparse. As it stands, few medical schools have formally incorporated nutrition education, and fewer still have integrated nutrition into the entire length of their 4-year curriculum. We describe how a new, formally integrated, 4-year nutrition curriculum was developed and is being implemented in a US medical school, and how this program will evolve as part of a twenty-first century medical school education., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestOn behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest., (© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2018.)

To positively impact patient safety, the Institute of Medicine, as well as the Quality and Safety Education for Nurses initiative, has recommended clinician training in structured communication techniques. Such techniques are particularly useful in overcoming hierarchical barriers in health care settings. This article describes an interprofessional simulation program to teach structured communication techniques to preprofessional nursing, medical, and physician assistant students. The teaching and evaluation plans are described to aid replication.

Physicians must possess knowledge and skills to address the gaps facing the US health care system. Educators advocate for reform in undergraduate medical education (UME) to align competencies with the Triple Aim. In 2014, five medical schools and one state university began collaborating on these curricular gaps. The authors report a framework for the Science of Health Care Delivery (SHCD) using six domains and highlight curricular examples from each school. They describe three challenges and strategies for success in implementing SHCD curricula. This collaboration highlights the importance of multi-institutional partnerships to accelerate innovation and adaptation of curricula., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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)., Competing Interests: None., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Since its publication in 2008, SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) has contributed to the completeness and transparency of reporting of quality improvement work, providing guidance to authors and reviewers of reports on healthcare improvement work. In the interim, enormous growth has occurred in understanding factors that influence the success, and failure, of healthcare improvement efforts. Progress has been particularly strong in three areas: the understanding of the theoretical basis for improvement work; the impact of contextual factors on outcomes; and the development of methodologies for studying improvement work. Consequently, there is now a need to revise the original publication guidelines. To reflect the breadth of knowledge and experience in the field, we solicited input from a wide variety of authors, editors and improvement professionals during the guideline revision process. This Explanation and Elaboration document (E&E) is a companion to the revised SQUIRE guidelines, SQUIRE 2.0. The product of collaboration by an international and interprofessional group of authors, this document provides examples from the published literature, and an explanation of how each reflects the intent of a specific item in SQUIRE. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist authors in writing clearly, precisely and completely about systematic efforts to improve the quality, safety and value of healthcare services. Authors can explore the SQUIRE statement, this E&E and related documents in detail at http://www.squire-statement.org., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: Integrating teaching and hands-on experience in quality improvement (QI) may increase the learning and the impact of resident QI work., Objective: We sought to determine the clinical and educational impact of an integrated QI curriculum., Methods: This clustered, randomized trial with early and late intervention groups used mixed methods evaluation. For almost 2 years, internal medicine residents from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center on the inpatient teams at the White River Junction VA participated in the QI curriculum. QI project effectiveness was assessed using statistical process control. Learning outcomes were assessed with the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool-Revised (QIKAT-R) and through self-efficacy, interprofessional care attitudes, and satisfaction of learners. Free text responses by residents and a focus group of nurses who worked with the residents provided information about the acceptability of the intervention., Results: The QI projects improved many clinical processes and outcomes, but not all led to improvements. Educational outcome response rates were 65% (68 of 105) at baseline, 50% (18 of 36) for the early intervention group at midpoint, 67% (24 of 36) for the control group at midpoint, and 53% (42 of 80) for the late intervention group. Composite QIKAT-R scores (range, 0-27) increased from 13.3 at baseline to 15.3 at end point ( P  < .01), as did the self-efficacy composite score ( P  < .05). Satisfaction with the curriculum was rated highly by all participants., Conclusions: Learning and participating in hands-on QI can be integrated into the usual inpatient work of resident physicians., Competing Interests: The authors declare they have no competing interests.

For most of the 20th century the predominant focus of medical education across the professional continuum was the dissemination and acquisition of medical knowledge and procedural skills. Today it is now clear that new areas of focus, such as interprofessional teamwork, care coordination, quality improvement, system science, health information technology, patient safety, assessment of clinical practice, and effective use of clinical decision supports are essential to 21st century medical practice. These areas of need helped to spawn an intense interest in competency-based models of professional education at the turn of this century. However, many of today's practicing health professionals were never educated in these newer competencies during their own training. Co-production and co-creation of learning among interprofessional health care professionals across the continuum can help close the gap in acquiring needed competencies for health care today and tomorrow. Co-learning may be a particularly effective strategy to help organizations achieve the triple aim of better population health, better health care, and lower costs. Structured frameworks, such as the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines, provide guidance in the design, planning, and dissemination of interventions designed to improve care through co-production and co-learning strategies.

Background: The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) Guideline was published in 2008 (SQUIRE 1.0) and was the first publication guideline specifically designed to advance the science of healthcare improvement. Advances in the discipline of improvement prompted us to revise it. We adopted a novel approach to the revision by asking end-users to 'road test' a draft version of SQUIRE 2.0. The aim was to determine whether they understood and implemented the guidelines as intended by the developers., Methods: Forty-four participants were assigned a manuscript section (ie, introduction, methods, results, discussion) and asked to use the draft Guidelines to guide their writing process. They indicated the text that corresponded to each SQUIRE item used and submitted it along with a confidential survey. The survey examined usability of the Guidelines using Likert-scaled questions and participants' interpretation of key concepts in SQUIRE using open-ended questions. On the submitted text, we evaluated concordance between participants' item usage/interpretation and the developers' intended application. For the survey, the Likert-scaled responses were summarised using descriptive statistics and the open-ended questions were analysed by content analysis., Results: Consistent with the SQUIRE Guidelines' recommendation that not every item be included, less than one-third (n=14) of participants applied every item in their section in full. Of the 85 instances when an item was partially used or was omitted, only 7 (8.2%) of these instances were due to participants not understanding the item. Usage of Guideline items was highest for items most similar to standard scientific reporting (ie, 'Specific aim of the improvement' (introduction), 'Description of the improvement' (methods) and 'Implications for further studies' (discussion)) and lowest (<20% of the time) for those unique to healthcare improvement (ie, 'Assessment methods for context factors that contributed to success or failure' and 'Costs and strategic trade-offs'). Items unique to healthcare improvement, specifically 'Evolution of the improvement', 'Context elements that influenced the improvement', 'The logic on which the improvement was based', 'Process and outcome measures', demonstrated poor concordance between participants' interpretation and developers' intended application., Conclusions: User testing of a draft version of SQUIRE 2.0 revealed which items have poor concordance between developer intent and author usage, which will inform final editing of the Guideline and development of supporting supplementary materials. It also identified the items that require special attention when teaching about scholarly writing in healthcare improvement., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Problem: Current models of health care quality improvement do not explicitly describe the role of health professions education. The authors propose the Exemplary Care and Learning Site (ECLS) model as an approach to achieving continual improvement in care and learning in the clinical setting., Approach: From 2008-2012, an iterative, interactive process was used to develop the ECLS model and its core elements--patients and families informing process changes; trainees engaging both in care and the improvement of care; leaders knowing, valuing, and practicing improvement; data transforming into useful information; and health professionals competently engaging both in care improvement and teaching about care improvement. In 2012-2013, a three-part feasibility test of the model, including a site self-assessment, an independent review of each site's ratings, and implementation case stories, was conducted at six clinical teaching sites (in the United States and Sweden)., Outcomes: Site leaders reported the ECLS model provided a systematic approach toward improving patient (and population) outcomes, system performance, and professional development. Most sites found it challenging to incorporate the patients and families element. The trainee element was strong at four sites. The leadership and data elements were self-assessed as the most fully developed. The health professionals element exhibited the greatest variability across sites., Next Steps: The next test of the model should be prospective, linked to clinical and educational outcomes, to evaluate whether it helps care delivery teams, educators, and patients and families take action to achieve better patient (and population) outcomes, system performance, and professional development.

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)., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) Guidelines were published in 2008 to increase the completeness, precision and accuracy of published reports of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare. Since that time, the field has expanded. We asked people from the field to evaluate the Guidelines, a novel approach to a first step in revision., Methods: Evaluative design using focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 29 end users and an advisory group of 18 thinkers in the field. Sampling of end users was purposive to achieve variation in work setting, geographic location, area of expertise, manuscript writing experience, healthcare improvement and research experience., Results: Study participants reported that SQUIRE was useful in planning a healthcare improvement project, but not as helpful during writing because of redundancies, uncertainty about what was important to include and lack of clarity in items. The concept "planning the study of the intervention" (item 10) was hard for many participants to understand. Participants varied in their interpretation of the meaning of item 10b "the concept of the mechanism by which changes were expected to occur". Participants disagreed about whether iterations of an intervention should be reported. Level of experience in writing, knowledge of the science of improvement and the evolving meaning of some terms in the field are hypothesised as the reasons for these findings., Conclusions: The original SQUIRE Guidelines help with planning healthcare improvement work, but are perceived as complicated and unclear during writing. Key goals of the revision will be to clarify items where conflict was identified and outline the key components necessary for complete reporting of improvement work., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

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) semi-structured 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 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, recognizing that they can be complex and multi-dimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

Background: The optimal method for obtaining good blood glucose control in noncritically ill patients undergoing peripheral vascular surgery remains a topic of debate for surgeons, endocrinologists, and others involved in the care of patients with peripheral arterial disease and diabetes. A prospective trial was performed to evaluate the impact of routine use of a glucose management service (GMS) on glycemic control within 24 hours of lower-extremity revascularization (LER)., Methods: In an interrupted time-series design (May 1, 2011-April 30, 2012), surgeon-directed diabetic care (Baseline phase) to routine GMS involvement (Intervention phase) was compared following LER. GMS assumed responsibility for glucose management through discharge. The main outcome measure was glycemic control, assessed by (1) mean hospitalization glucose and (2) the percentage of recorded glucose values within target range. Statistical process control charts were used to assess the impact of the intervention., Results: Clinically important differences in patient demographics were noted between groups; the 19 patients in the Intervention arm had worse peripheral vascular disease than the 19 patients in the Baseline arm (74% critical limb ischemia versus 58%; p = .63). Routine use of GMS significantly reduced mean hospitalization glucose (191 mg/dL Baseline versus 150 mg/dL Intervention, p < .001). Further, the proportion of glucose values in target range increased (48% Baseline versus 78% Intervention, p = .05). Following removal of GMS involvement, measures of glycemic control did not significantly decrease for the 19 postintervention patients., Conclusions: Routine involvement of GMS improved glycemic control in patients undergoing LER. Future work is needed to examine the impact of improved glycemic control on clinical outcomes following LER.

Background: Influenza vaccination is the most effective method for preventing influenza virus infection. Adult hospitalised patients form a particularly high-risk group for severe influenza given their advanced age and comorbidities. We sought to improve the influenza vaccination rates of hospitalised patients at the White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center., Methods: The improvement effort started in 2007 when our baseline vaccination rate was about 60%. An interprofessional team analysed the influenza vaccination process for hospitalised patients. During the course of six influenza seasons, eight Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were used including a hospital-wide flu campaign, embedded orders in the electronic medical record (EMR) to facilitate ordering vaccinations by providers, daily reminders from ward clerks and standing orders for influenza vaccination on discharge. The measure was the monthly percentage of patients discharged from the hospital with an up-to-date influenza vaccination., Results: The percentage of veterans discharged with an up-to-date influenza vaccination increased to over 80% in February 2009 and has remained high., Conclusions: Although we are confident that our local efforts helped to improve the vaccination rate, external factors such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and universal vaccination may have primed our system to respond more readily to the implemented changes. Understanding all of the relevant factors that lead to vaccination uptake can be applied to future hospital influenza vaccination campaigns. In addition, our work demonstrates that an interprofessional approach is still required to apply the functionality of the EMR effectively., (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.)

Purpose: Quality improvement (QI) is a common competency that must be taught in all physician training programmes, yet, there is no clear best approach to teach this content in clinical settings. We conducted a realist systematic review of the existing literature in QI curricula within the clinical setting, highlighting examples of trainees learning QI by doing QI., Method: Candidate theories describing successful QI curricula were articulated a priori. We searched MEDLINE (1 January 2000 to 12 March 2013), the Cochrane Library (2013) and Web of Science (15 March 2013) and reviewed references of prior systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria included study design, setting, population, interventions, clinical and educational outcomes. The data abstraction tool included categories for setting, population, intervention, outcomes and qualitative comments. Themes were iteratively developed and synthesised using realist review methodology. A methodological quality tool assessed the biases, confounders, secular trends, reporting and study quality., Results: Among 39 studies, most were before-after design with resident physicians as the primary population. Twenty-one described clinical interventions and 18 described educational interventions with a mean intervention length of 6.58 (SD=9.16) months. Twenty-eight reported successful clinical improvements; no studies reported clinical outcomes that worsened. Characteristics of successful clinical QI curricula include attention to the interface of educational and clinical systems, careful choice of QI work for the trainees and appropriately trained local faculty., Conclusions: This realist review identified success characteristics to guide training programmes, medical schools, faculty, trainees, accrediting organisations and funders to further develop educational and improvement resources in QI educational programmes., (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.)

Purpose: Quality improvement (QI) is a common competency that must be taught in all physician training programmes, yet, there is no clear best approach to teach this content in clinical settings. We conducted a realist systematic review of the existing literature in QI curricula within the clinical setting, highlighting examples of trainees learning QI by doing QI., Method: Candidate theories describing successful QI curricula were articulated a priori. We searched MEDLINE (1 January 2000 to 12 March 2013), the Cochrane Library (2013) and Web of Science (15 March 2013) and reviewed references of prior systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria included study design, setting, population, interventions, clinical and educational outcomes. The data abstraction tool included categories for setting, population, intervention, outcomes and qualitative comments. Themes were iteratively developed and synthesised using realist review methodology. A methodological quality tool assessed the biases, confounders, secular trends, reporting and study quality., Results: Among 39 studies, most were before-after design with resident physicians as the primary population. Twenty-one described clinical interventions and 18 described educational interventions with a mean intervention length of 6.58 (SD=9.16) months. Twenty-eight reported successful clinical improvements; no studies reported clinical outcomes that worsened. Characteristics of successful clinical QI curricula include attention to the interface of educational and clinical systems, careful choice of QI work for the trainees and appropriately trained local faculty., Conclusions: This realist review identified success characteristics to guide training programmes, medical schools, faculty, trainees, accrediting organisations and funders to further develop educational and improvement resources in QI educational programmes., (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.)

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.

Purpose: Quality improvement (QI) has been part of medical education for over a decade. Assessment of QI learning remains challenging. The Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool (QIKAT), developed a decade ago, is widely used despite its subjective nature and inconsistent reliability. From 2009 to 2012, the authors developed and assessed the validation of a revised QIKAT, the "QIKAT-R.", Method: Phase 1: Using an iterative, consensus-building process, a national group of QI educators developed a scoring rubric with defined language and elements. Phase 2: Five scorers pilot tested the QIKAT-R to assess validity and inter- and intrarater reliability using responses to four scenarios, each with three different levels of response quality: "excellent," "fair," and "poor." Phase 3: Eighteen scorers from three countries used the QIKAT-R to assess the same sets of student responses., Results: Phase 1: The QI educators developed a nine-point scale that uses dichotomous answers (yes/no) for each of three QIKAT-R subsections: Aim, Measure, and Change. Phase 2: The QIKAT-R showed strong discrimination between "poor" and "excellent" responses, and the intra- and interrater reliability were strong. Phase 3: The discriminative validity of the instrument remained strong between excellent and poor responses. The intraclass correlation was 0.66 for the total nine-point scale., Conclusions: The QIKAT-R is a user-friendly instrument that maintains the content and construct validity of the original QIKAT but provides greatly improved interrater reliability. The clarity within the key subsections aligns the assessment closely with QI knowledge application for students and residents.