Control charts in healthcare quality monitoring: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Control charts, used in healthcare operations to monitor process stability and quality, are essential for ensuring patient safety and improving clinical outcomes. This comprehensive research study aims to provide a thorough understanding of the role of control charts in healthcare quality monitoring and future perspectives by utilizing a dual methodology approach involving a systematic review and a pioneering bibliometric analysis. A systematic review of 73 out of 223 articles was conducted, synthesizing existing literature (1995-2023) and revealing insights into key trends, methodological approaches, and emerging themes of control charts in healthcare. In parallel, a bibliometric analysis (1990-2023) on 184 articles gathered from Web of Science and Scopus was performed, quantitatively assessing the scholarly landscape encompassing control charts in healthcare. Among 25 countries, the USA is the foremost user of control charts, accounting for 33% of all applications, whereas among 14 health departments, epidemiology leads with 28% of applications. The practice of control charts in health monitoring has increased by more than one-third during the last 3 years. Globally, exponentially weighted moving average charts are the most popular, but interestingly the USA remained the top user of Shewhart charts. The study also uncovers a dynamic landscape in healthcare quality monitoring, with key contributors, research networks, research hotspot tendencies, and leading countries. Influential authors, such as J.C. Benneyan, W.H. Woodall, and M.A. Mohammed played a leading role in this field. In-countries networking, USA-UK leads the largest cluster, while other clusters include Denmark-Norway-Sweden, China-Singapore, and Canada-South Africa. From 1990 to 2023, healthcare monitoring evolved from studying efficiency to focusing on conditional monitoring and flowcharting, with human health, patient safety, and health surveys dominating 2011-2020, and recent years emphasizing epidemic control, COronaVIrus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) statistical process control, hospitals, and human health monitoring using control charts. It identifies a transition from conventional to artificial intelligence approaches, with increasing contributions from machine learning and deep learning in the context of Industry 4.0. New researchers and journals are emerging, reshaping the academic context of control charts in healthcare. Our research reveals the evolving landscape of healthcare quality monitoring, surpassing traditional reviews. We uncover emerging trends, research gaps, and a transition in leadership from established contributors to newcomers amidst technological advancements. This study deepens the importance of control charts, offering insights for healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers to enhance healthcare quality. Future challenges and research directions are also provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".