The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement
Abstract
Background: Quality improvement (QI) efforts have become widespread in healthcare, however there is significant variability in their success. Differences in context are thought to be responsible for some of the variability seen. Objective: To develop a conceptual model that can be used by organisations and QI researchers to understand and optimise contextual factors affecting the success of a QI project. Methods: 10 QI experts were provided with the results of a systematic literature review and then participated in two rounds of opinion gathering to identify and define important contextual factors. The experts subsequently met in person to identify relationships among factors and to begin to build the model. Results: The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ) is organised based on the level of the healthcare system and identifies 25 contextual factors likely to influence QI success. Contextual factors within microsystems and those related to the QI team are hypothesised to directly shape QI success, whereas factors within the organisation and external environment are believed to influence success indirectly. Conclusions: The MUSIQ framework has the potential to guide the application of QI methods in healthcare and focus research. The specificity of MUSIQ and the explicit delineation of relationships among factors allows a deeper understanding of the mechanism of action by which context influences QI success. MUSIQ also provides a foundation to support further studies to test and refine the theory and advance the field of QI science.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
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
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
An Intervention to Decrease Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the ICU
Pronovost, P., Needham, D., Berenholtz, S., Sinopoli, D., Chu, H., Cosgrove, S., Sexton, B., Hyzy, R., Welsh, R., Roth, G., et al. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa061115 · Cited by 4,387
Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research
Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376 · Cited by 3,471
Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework.
Kitson, A., Harvey, G., & McCormack, B. (1998) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.7.3.149 · Cited by 1,985
The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion
(1969) · RAND Corporation eBooks · doi:10.7249/rm5888 · Cited by 1,628
An experimental study of group opinion
Dalkey, N. (1969) · Futures · doi:10.1016/s0016-3287(69)80025-x · Cited by 750
KAPLAN, H. C., BRADY, P. W., DRITZ, M. C., HOOPER, D. K., LINAM, W. M., FROEHLE, C. M., & MARGOLIS, P. (2010) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x · Cited by 714
Self-citationIngredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework
Rycroft-Malone, J. (2002) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qhc.11.2.174 · Cited by 701
The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1972) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.62.3.337 · Cited by 624
Cited by
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
Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.015 · Cited by 366
The problem with plan-do-study-act cycles
Reed, J. E., & Card, A. J. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005076 · Cited by 352
Ogrinc, G., Armstrong, G. E., Dolansky, M. A., Singh, M. K., & Davies, L. (2019) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002750 · Cited by 263
The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: a realist review
Coles, E., Anderson, J., Maxwell, M., Harris, F. M., Gray, N. M., Milner, G., & MacGillivray, S. (2020) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01344-3 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaplan, H. C., Provost, L. P., Froehle, C. M., & Margolis, P. A.
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2011-08-10
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-20
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W2124623783
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 39
- FWCI
- 29.59
- 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: The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000010
- The paper
- Kaplan, H. C., Provost, L. P., Froehle, C. M., & Margolis, P. A. (2012). The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000010
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.