Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance

Quality assurance is the overarching term used to describe the activities employed to ensure the proper performance of a system. These activities can be classified into three categories: quality control, quality assessment, and internal corrective measures. Typically, these activities work cyclically: quality control is performed before and during the analysis, while quality assessment occurs during and after the investigation. Internal corrective measures are implemented based on the findings...

Nursing Evaluation

Nursing Evaluation

The evaluation stage signals the end of the nursing process. The nurse gathers evaluative data to assess whether or not the patient has attained the expected results. Whereas the nurse collects data in the nursing assessment to identify the patient's health concerns, the evaluation stage data determines if the indicated health issues are resolved. Evaluative data collection includes two sections: the data acquired to evaluate patient outcomes and the time criteria for data collection.
Section...

Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions

Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions

Creating and executing a nursing diagnosis helps nurses plan care and guide patient, family, and community interventions. They are developed based on a patient's physical evaluation and support measuring the outcomes. It is not recommended to select random interventions throughout the planning process. Instead, consider the following six essential factors when choosing interventions:

Guidelines for Writing Outcome

Guidelines for Writing Outcome

When developing expected outcomes for a patient care plan, the nurse should adhere to the following recommendations:
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care evaluation by...

Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching III: Evaluation and Documentation

Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching III: Evaluation and Documentation

Evaluation of the teaching process enables the nurse to determine if the patient's learning needs were met and if training was effective. If the expected outcomes are not met, the care plan is revised, and additional education or reinforcement is provided. Nurses can ask questions after the session or obtain feedback to assess the patient's understanding of the topic.
Nurses can use several methods to evaluate patient outcomes. For example, oral questions can assess cognitive learning, patient...

Methods of Documentation III: PIE

Methods of Documentation III: PIE

Problem-intervention-evaluation (PIE) is a systematic approach to documentation used in healthcare settings for clinical decision-making and patient care planning. It is a structured approach to organizing patient data based on problems, interventions, and evaluations. Here's a breakdown of its key features and considerations:

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Report cards and outcome measurements to improve the safety of surgical care (North America): an updated systematic review from Making Healthcare Safer IV.

BMJ open·2026

Same author

Viscoelastic testing in postpartum obstetric hemorrhage: a scoping review commissioned by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

International journal of obstetric anesthesia·2025

Same author

Does perioperative hydrocortisone reduce morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy? A propensity score matched analysis.

Updates in surgery·2025

Same author

Harnessing the potential of data-driven strategies to optimise transfusion practice.

British journal of haematology·2023

Same author

[Highlights of pancreatic surgery: extended indications in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors].

Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)·2022

Same author

Opportunities to improve the impact of two national clinical audit programmes: a theory-guided analysis.

Implementation science communications·2022

Same journal

Organisational culture: variation across hospitals and connection to patient safety climate.

Quality & safety in health care·2010

Same journal

The Rhode Island ICU collaborative: a model for reducing central line-associated bloodstream infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia statewide.

Quality & safety in health care·2010

Same journal

Assessing and improving safety culture throughout an academic medical centre: a prospective cohort study.

Quality & safety in health care·2010

Same journal

The WHO patient safety curriculum guide for medical schools.

Quality & safety in health care·2010

Same journal

Preventing ethics conflicts and improving healthcare quality through system redesign.

Quality & safety in health care·2010

Same journal

Improvement leaders: what do they and should they do? A summary of a review of research.

Quality & safety in health care·2010

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 10, 2026

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

Published on: February 19, 2021

Identifying quality improvement intervention evaluations: is consensus achievable?

M S Danz¹, L V Rubenstein, S Hempel

¹RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA. mjsdanz@gmail.com

Quality & Safety in Health Care

|July 16, 2010

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Developing a framework to identify quality improvement interventions (QIIs) is crucial for evidence review. This study tested methods for identifying QII evaluations, finding moderate reviewer agreement and highlighting areas for improvement.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 10, 2026

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

Published on: February 19, 2021

Area of Science:

Healthcare Quality
Evidence-Based Practice
Health Services Research

Background:

The wide variety of quality improvement interventions (QIIs) hinders evidence review and consensus on best practices.
A standardized framework is needed to identify QII articles and advance quality improvement (QI) activities.
Current methods for identifying QII evaluations are insufficient for assessing their effectiveness.

Purpose of the Study:

To adapt and test evidence review methods for identifying empirical QII evaluations.
To assess the suitability of identified evaluations for determining QII effectiveness, impact, or success.
To improve the reliability of identifying relevant QII research for evidence synthesis.

Main Methods:

Conducted a literature search across ten journals from 2005-2007.
Screened articles by title and abstract, followed by independent rating of 22 selected articles by three reviewer pairs.
Measured inter-rater agreement using Kappa statistics and percentage agreement, with subsequent discussion among reviewers and stakeholders on disagreements.

Main Results:

Achieved 73% agreement among reviewers in identifying empirical QII evaluations, but with a low Kappa statistic (0.041).
Key areas of reviewer disagreement included studies lacking patient health, provider behavior, or process outcomes; interventions without local adaptation evidence; and designs lacking comparison groups.
Discussions highlighted the need for clearer criteria regarding outcome measures, intervention adaptation, and study design.

Conclusions:

Moderate reviewer agreement indicates a need for improved methods to reliably identify QII evaluations.
Reliable identification of relevant literature is a foundational step for assessing published evidence on QIIs.
Developing and testing a generalizable, theory- and consensus-based framework is essential for advancing quality improvement research.