Quality Improvement Education for Health Professionals: A Systematic Review

Stephanie R. Starr, Jordan M. Kautz, Atsushi Sorita, Kristine M. Thompson, Darcy A. Reed, Barbara L. Porter, David L. Mapes, Catherine C. Roberts, Daniel Kuo, Pavithra R. Bora, Tarig A. Elraiyah, Mohammad H. Murad, Henry H. Ting

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

30 Scopus citations


Effective quality improvement (QI) education should improve patient care, but many curriculum studies do not include clinical measures. The research team evaluated the prevalence of QI curricula with clinical measures and their association with several curricular features. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC were searched through December 31, 2013. Study selection and data extraction were completed by pairs of reviewers. Of 99 included studies, 11% were randomized, and 53% evaluated clinically relevant measures; 85% were from the United States. The team found that 49% targeted 2 or more health professions, 80% required a QI project, and 65% included coaching. Studies involving interprofessional learners (odds ratio [OR] = 6.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.71-15.82), QI projects (OR = 13.60; 95% CI = 2.92-63.29), or coaching (OR = 4.38; 95% CI = 1.79-10.74) were more likely to report clinical measures. A little more than half of the published QI curricula studies included clinical measures; they were more likely to include interprofessional learners, QI projects, and coaching.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)209-216
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Medical Quality
Issue number3
StatePublished - May 2014


  • education
  • health professionals
  • quality improvement
  • systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Quality Improvement Education for Health Professionals: A Systematic Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this