Responses

Download PDFPDF

Evaluation of quality improvement programmes
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Guidelines can be derived from research into quality programmes

    Dear Editor

    I would like to thank Dr Checkland for her thoughtful comments on our paper about evaluating quality programmes. I have some sympathy with her views and for the intriguing proposal about research in this area which she makes. I would agree that insufficient attention has been given to how features of organisations described in organisational theory influences how quality programmes are carried throu...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Quality improvement programmes: time for a rethink?

    Dear Editor

    I read the paper by Ovretveit and Gustafsen with interest, as I believe that this is a neglected area. I found their paper admirably clear and concise, and I would agree with many of their points. However, I feel that they have neglected one important area.

    In their discussion of the ways in which this kind of research could be improved, they discuss the need for empirically based explanatory theo...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.