MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411535633 · doi:10.1017/s1463423625100170

Practical strategies for achieving system change in the US: lessons and insights from the CONQUEST quality improvement programme

2025· review· en· W4411535633 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Evans, Jill VanWyk, Margee Kerr, Amy Couper, Wilson D. Pace, Yasir Tarabichi, Rachel Pullen, Michael Pollack, Michael Drummond, Jill Ohar, Catherine A. Meldrum, MeiLan K Han, Alan Kaplan, Tonya Winders, Juan P. Wisnivesky, Barry J. Make, Alex D. Federman, Victoria Carter, Katie Lang, Douglas W. Mapel, Nicola A. Hanania, Daiana Stolz, Fernando J. Martínez, David Price

Bibliographic record

VenuePrimary Health Care Research & Development · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsProcess managementContext (archaeology)Quality managementAccountabilityHealth careQuality (philosophy)Identification (biology)BusinessMedicineComputer scienceOperations managementManagement systemEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement programmes (QIPs) are designed to enhance patient outcomes by systematically introducing evidence-based clinical practices. The CONQUEST QIP focuses on improving the identification and management of patients with COPD in primary care. The process of developing CONQUEST, recruiting, preparing systems for participation, and implementing the QIP across three integrated healthcare systems (IHSs) is examined to identify and share lessons learned. APPROACH AND DEVELOPMENT: This review is organized into three stages: 1) development, 2) preparing IHSs for implementation, and 3) implementation. In each stage, key steps are described with the lessons learned and how they can inform others interested in developing QIPs designed to improve the care of patients with chronic conditions in primary care.Stage 1 was establishing and working with steering committees to develop the QIP Quality Standards, define the target patient population, assess current management practices, and create a global operational protocol. Additionally, potential IHSs were assessed for feasibility of QIP integration into primary care practices. Factors assessed included a review of technological infrastructure, QI experience, and capacity for effective implementation.Stage 2 was preparation for implementation. Key was enlisting clinical champions to advocate for the QIP, secure participation in primary care, and establish effective communication channels. Preparation for implementation required obtaining IHS approvals, ensuring Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance, and devising operational strategies for patient outreach and clinical decision support delivery.Stage 3 was developing three IHS implementation models. With insight into the local context from local clinicians, implementation models were adapted to work with the resources and capacity of the IHSs while ensuring the delivery of essential elements of the programme. CONCLUSION: Developing and launching a QIP programme across primary care practices requires extensive groundwork, preparation, and committed local champions to assist in building an adaptable environment that encourages open communication and is receptive to feedback.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.809
GPT teacher head0.739
Teacher spread0.070 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrimary Health Care Research & DevelopmentSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207