SQUIRE-EDU (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence in Education): Publication Guidelines for Educational Improvement
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The reporting of this study conforms to the SQUIRE-EUD statement.
“The reporting of this study conforms to the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence in Education statement (SQUIRE-EUD) 17 (see Supplemental Material).”
From Structured Development of Learning and Assessment Tasks to Prevent Generative AI Misuse and Enhance AI Literacy in the Faculty in Physiotherapy Education (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496 · see citing works
Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411 · Cited by 2,996 · see citing works
Self-citationKitson, A. L., Rycroft-Malone, J., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Seers, K., & Titchen, A. (2008) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-1 · Cited by 1,314 · see citing works
Demystifying theory and its use in improvement
Davidoff, F., Dixon-Woods, M., Leviton, L., & Michie, S. (2015) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627 · Cited by 714 · see citing works
Kaplan, H. C., Provost, L., Froehle, C. M., & Margolis, P. A. (2011) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000010 · Cited by 572 · see citing works
Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project
Davidoff, F., Batalden, P., Stevens, D., Ogrinc, G., Mooney, S., & for the SQUIRE development group (2008) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.029066 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Self-citationPhillips, A., Lewis, L. K., McEvoy, M. P., Galipeau, J., Glasziou, P., Moher, D., Tilson, J. K., & Williams, M. (2016) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0759-1 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
A Unifying Theory of Systems Thinking with Psychosocial Applications
Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., & Powers, E. (2015) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.2351 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
The international EQUATOR network: enhancing the quality and transparency of health care research
Pandis, N., & Fedorowicz, Z. (2011) · Journal of Applied Oral Science · doi:10.1590/s1678-77572011000500001 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Cook, D. A., Beckman, T. J., & Bordage, G. (2007) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02861.x · Cited by 65 · see citing works
An instrument to differentiate between clinical research and quality improvement.
Ogrinc, G. S., Nelson, W. A., Adams, S. M., et al. (2014) · PubMed · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citationDavies, L., Donnelly, K. Z., Goodman, D., & Ogrinc, G. S. (2015) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004117 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationTesting for Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN)
James, D. H., Patrician, P. A., & Miltner, R. S. (2017) · Journal for Nurses in Professional Development · doi:10.1097/nnd.0000000000000365 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [14]Barr H Koppel I Reeves S Hammick M Freeth D Effective Interprofessional Education: Argument, Assumption and Evidence. 2005 Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd..
- [17]Bryk A Gomez L Grunow A LeMahieu P Learning to Improve: How American Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better. 2015 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C., Caulley, L., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Greenberg, D., Loder, E., et al. (2022) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 · Cited by 847 · see citing works
Lindbäck, Y., Valeskog, K., Schröder, K., & Sonesson, S. (2025) · Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · doi:10.1177/23821205251378794 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“The reporting of this study conforms to the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence in Education statement (SQUIRE-EUD) 17 (see Supplemental Material).”
- Authors
- Ogrinc, G., Armstrong, G. E., Dolansky, M. A., Singh, M. K., & Davies, L.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ogrinc, Greg
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1461-1470
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6760810
- OpenAlex
- W2938351763
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 51 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 14.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- Emory University
- University of Missouri
- University of Minnesota
- Case Western Reserve University
- Dartmouth College
- Edge Hill University
- Midwestern University
- University of Toronto
- School of Medicine, Emory University
- University of California, San Francisco
- Audrey and Theodor Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- educational improvement, quality improvement reporting, health professions education, reporting guidelines, educational gaps, intervention fidelity, interprofessional collaboration
- MeSH terms
- Education, Medical, Humans, Guidelines as Topic, Research Report, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
