Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 476

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teaching Quality Improvement and Patient Safety to Trainees: A Systematic Review

Wong, Brian M., Etchells, Edward E., Kuper, Ayelet, Levinson, Wendy, Shojania, Kaveh G.·2010·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: To systematically review published quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) curricula for medical students and/or residents to (1) determine educational content and teaching methods, (2) assess learning outcomes achieved, and (3) identify factors promoting or hindering curricular implementation. METHOD: Data sources included Medline (to January 2009), EMBASE, HealthSTAR, and article bibliographies. Studies selected reported curricula outlining specific educational content and teaching format. For articles with an evaluative component, the authors abstracted methodological features, such as study design. For all articles, they conducted a thematic analysis to identify factors influencing successful implementation of the included curricula. RESULTS: Of 41 curricula that met the authors' criteria, 14 targeted medical students, 24 targeted residents, and 3 targeted both. Common educational content included continuous QI, root cause analysis, and systems thinking. Among 27 reports that included an evaluation, curricula were generally well accepted. Most curricula demonstrated improved knowledge. Thirteen studies (32%) successfully implemented local changes in care delivery, and seven (17%) significantly improved target processes of care. Factors that affected the successful curricular implementation included having sufficient numbers of faculty familiar with QI and PS content, addressing competing educational demands, and ensuring learners' buy-in and enthusiasm. Participants in some curricula also commented on discrepancies between curricular material and local institutional practice or culture. CONCLUSIONS: QI and PS curricula that target trainees usually improve learners' knowledge and frequently result in changes in clinical processes. However, successfully implementing such curricula requires attention to a number of learner, faculty, and organizational factors.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e3181e2d0c6

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 476

Metadata

Authors
Wong, B. M., Etchells, E. E., Kuper, A., Levinson, W., & Shojania, K. G.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2010-09
Volume
85
Issue
9
Pages
1425-1439
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2004745830
Cited by
476
References
40
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Teaching Quality Improvement and Patient Safety to Trainees: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181e2d0c6
The paper
Wong, B. M., Etchells, E. E., Kuper, A., Levinson, W., & Shojania, K. G. (2010). Teaching Quality Improvement and Patient Safety to Trainees: A Systematic Review. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181e2d0c6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.