Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature

Open access
Goodman, Daisy, Ogrinc, Greg, Davies, Louise, Baker, G Ross, Barnsteiner, Jane, Foster, Tina C, Gali, Kari, Hilden, Joanne, Horwitz, Leora, Kaplan, Heather C, Leis, Jerome, Matulis, John C, Michie, Susan, Miltner, Rebecca, Neily, Julia, Nelson, William A, Niedner, Matthew, Oliver, Brant, Rutman, Lori, Thomson, Richard, Thor, Johan·2016·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

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.

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 · 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004480

Cites

14 of 14 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 14 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1136/qshc.2008.029058 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1136/bmj.c869 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1373/49.1.1 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1136/qshc.8.2.76 · DOI
  5. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003620 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000010 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Ogrinc G , Davies L , Goodman D , et al . SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411 doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411 · DOI
  8. Davies L , Donnelly KZ , Goodman DJ , et al . Findings from a novel approach to publication guideline revision: user road testing of a draft version of SQUIRE 2.0. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004117 doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004117 · DOI
  9. 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000316 · DOI
  10. 10.1136/bmj.d195 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000034 · doi:10.1097/anc.0000000000000034
  12. 10.1542/peds.2014-1192 · DOI
  13. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008017 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1097/QMH.0b013e31828bc3bc · DOI
  15. 10.1186/s13012-015-0322-1 · DOI
  16. Zubkoff, 2014, Using a virtual breakthrough series collaborative to reduce postoperative respiratory failure in 16 Veterans Health Administration hospitals, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf, 40, 11
  17. 10.1542/peds.2014-1162 · DOI
  18. Duncan, 2014, Improving delivery of bright futures preventive services at the 9- and 24-month well child visit, Pediatrics, 135, e178, 10.1542/peds.2013-3119 · DOI
  19. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003080 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.02.012 · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.02.012
  21. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002364 · DOI
  22. Nelson, 1996, Improving health care, Part 1: the clinical value compass, Jt Comm J Qual Improv, 22, 243
  23. Pettigrew A WRMcfcs. Managing change for competitive success. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  24. Robson C 2011. Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. 3rd edn. Chichester: Wiley, 2011.
  25. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003001 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003001
  26. 10.1136/qshc.2008.029025 · DOI
  27. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001166 · DOI
  28. Donabedian A . Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Ann Arbour, MI: Health Administration Press, 1980.
  29. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001954 · DOI
  30. 10.1353/hcr.2006.0054 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.2105/AJPH.91.9.1512 · doi:10.2105/ajph.91.9.1512
  32. 10.7326/0003-4819-146-9-200705010-00155 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1093/intqhc/mzh075 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzh075
  34. 10.1136/qshc.2009.038034 · doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.038034
  35. Fox, 2005, Recommendations for the ethical conduct of quality improvement, JClin Ethics, 16, 61, 10.1086/JCE200516107 · DOI
  36. 10.1093/intqhc/mzt037 · DOI
  37. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003556 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003556
  38. 10.1370/afm.1492 · DOI
  39. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1542/peds.2013-3833 · DOI
  41. 10.1542/peds.2013-2494 · DOI
  42. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001404 · DOI
  43. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002345 · DOI
  44. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002352 · DOI
  45. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001610 · DOI
  46. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1878 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Goodman, D., Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Baker, G. R., Barnsteiner, J., Foster, T. C., Gali, K., Hilden, J., Horwitz, L., Kaplan, H. C., Leis, J., Matulis, J. C., Michie, S., Miltner, R., Neily, J., Nelson, W. A., Niedner, M., Oliver, B., Rutman, L., Thomson, R., & Thor, J.
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-04-13
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
e7-e7
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2341143633
Cited by
374
References
14
FWCI
51.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Health Foundation

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: Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004480
The paper
Goodman, D., Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Baker, G. R., Barnsteiner, J., Foster, T. C., Gali, K., Hilden, J., Horwitz, L., Kaplan, H. C., Leis, J., Matulis, J. C., Michie, S., Miltner, R., Neily, J., Nelson, W. A., Niedner, M., Oliver, B., Rutman, L., . . . Thor, J. (2016). Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004480

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.