The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quality collaboratives: lessons from research
Open accessAbstract
Quality improvement collaboratives are increasingly being used in many countries to achieve rapid improvements in health care. However, there is little independent evidence that they are more cost effective than other methods, and little knowledge about how they could be made more effective. A number of systematic evaluations are being performed by researchers in North America, the UK, and Sweden. This paper presents the shared ideas from two meetings of these researchers. The evidence to date is that some collaboratives have stimulated improvements in patient care and organisational performance, but there are significant differences between collaboratives and teams. The researchers agreed on the possible reasons why some were less successful than others, and identified 10 challenges which organisers and teams need to address to achieve improvement. In the absence of more conclusive evidence, these guidelines are likely to be useful for collaborative organisers, teams and their managers and may also contribute to further research into collaboratives and the spread of innovations in health care.
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
Cited by
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
Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308530 · Cited by 3,190
What Do We Know about Health Care Team Effectiveness? A Review of the Literature
Lemieux-Charles, L., & McGuire, W. L. (2006) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558706287003 · Cited by 844
An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice
Rycroft‐Malone, J., Harvey, G., Seers, K., Kitson, A., McCormack, B., & Titchen, A. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.01007.x · Cited by 623
Explaining Michigan: Developing an Ex Post Theory of a Quality Improvement Program
DIXON-WOODS, M., BOSK, C. L., AVELING, E. L., GOESCHEL, C. A., & PRONOVOST, P. J. (2011) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00625.x · Cited by 603
Metadata
- Authors
- Ovretveit, J.
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-12-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 345-351
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2129854220
- Cited by
- 568
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qhc.11.4.345
- The paper
- Ovretveit, J. (2002). Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Quality and Safety in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.4.345
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.