The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature: Table 1
Open accessAbstract
Background: Formal evaluations of programmes are an important source of learning about the challenges faced in improving quality in healthcare and how they can be addressed. The authors aimed to integrate lessons from evaluations of the Health Foundation's improvement programmes with relevant literature. Methods: The authors analysed evaluation reports relating to five Health Foundation improvement programmes using a form of ‘best fit’ synthesis, where a pre-existing framework was used for initial coding and then updated in response to the emerging analysis. A rapid narrative review of relevant literature was also undertaken. Results: The authors identified ten key challenges: convincing people that there is a problem that is relevant to them; convincing them that the solution chosen is the right one; getting data collection and monitoring systems right; excess ambitions and ‘projectness’; organisational cultures, capacities and contexts; tribalism and lack of staff engagement; leadership; incentivising participation and ‘hard edges’; securing sustainability; and risk of unintended consequences. The authors identified a range of tactics that may be used to respond to these challenges. Discussion: Securing improvement may be hard and slow and faces many challenges. Formal evaluations assist in recognising the nature of these challenges and help in addressing them.
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
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Leadership Without Easy Answers
Heifetz, R. A. (2009) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv1pncrt0 · Cited by 1,889
The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review
de Vries, E. N., Ramrattan, M. A., Smorenburg, S. M., Gouma, D. J., & Boermeester, M. A. (2008) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.023622 · Cited by 1,784
Leadership Without Easy Answers
Heifetz, R. A. (1994) · doi:10.4159/9780674038479 · Cited by 1,739
The Nonspread of Innovations: the Mediating Role of Professionals
Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.15993150 · Cited by 1,106
Gabbay, J., & May, A. L. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1013 · Cited by 986
Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care
Crawford, M. J., Rutter, D., Manley, C., Weaver, T., Bhui, K., Fulop, N., & Tyrer, P. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1263 · Cited by 983
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
Shortell, S. M., Bennett, C. L., & Byck, G. R. (1998) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00107 · Cited by 639
Cited by
A scoping review of rapid review methods
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 · Cited by 1,146
Panagioti, M., Khan, K., Keers, R. N., Abuzour, A., Phipps, D., Kontopantelis, E., Bower, P., Campbell, S., Haneef, R., Avery, A. J., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4185 · Cited by 874
“Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., & Rick, J. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-37 · Cited by 649
(2018) · doi:10.1596/978-92-4-151390-6 · Cited by 597
Flemming, K., Booth, A., Garside, R., Tunçalp, Ö., & Noyes, J. (2019) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882 · Cited by 389
Metadata
- Authors
- Dixon-Woods, M., McNicol, S., & Martin, G.
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012-04-28
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 876-884
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W2153547614
- Cited by
- 601
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 46.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature: Table 1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000760
- The paper
- Dixon-Woods, M., McNicol, S., & Martin, G. (2012). Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature: Table 1. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000760
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.
