Organising a manuscript reporting quality improvement or patient safety research

Abstract

Each section of the paper discusses a specific manuscript component-from title, abstract and each section of the manuscript body, through to reference list and tables and figures-explaining key principles, offering content organisation tips and providing an example of how this section may read. The paper also offers a checklist of common mistakes to avoid in a manuscript.

SQUIRE and the evolving science of healthcare improvement

“…Editorial expectations for such reports have subsequently evolved,1 11 paralleling the development of insights into the science of healthcare improvement 2–4…”

“…This requires a balance of the strengths of traditional quality improvement methodologies with those of sensibly crafted innovative improvement initiatives—perhaps methodologies that are not even currently apparent. One practical strategy will be wider employment of SQUIRE as an anchor for formal teaching and coaching about writing, which offers a pragmatic test bed for how and where SQUIRE fits in the design of improvement initiatives and the preparation of useful manuscripts 11 30. Ultimately, the many stakeholders in healthcare improvement including clinicians, improvement specialists, methodologists, statisticians, editors, reviewers and readers will be the arbiters of the essential elements of a scholarly improvement report.…”

Author, Reviewer, Decision, Oh My!

“…The Introductory section should be limited to one doublespaced page, 300 words or two to three paragraphs (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013;Roederer et al, 2013;Veness, 2010). The leading sentence defines the problem.…”

“…Reviewers look for logical organization of headings in this section: design, setting, participants, variables, and/or outcomes and a reasonable plan for statistical analyses based on research questions (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013;Kalpakjian & Meade, 2008;Roederer et al, 2103). Reviewers look for logical organization of headings in this section: design, setting, participants, variables, and/or outcomes and a reasonable plan for statistical analyses based on research questions (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013;Kalpakjian & Meade, 2008;Roederer et al, 2103).…”

“…Reviewers look for parallel organization between the Methods and Results sections; all data described in Results must have been introduced and defined in Methods (Holzmueller & Pronovost, 2013). The Results section should be a concise, knowledgeable, and factual recounting from data analysisVwithout interpretation and in same order as outlined in Methods (Kalpakjian & Meade, 2008;Roederer et al, 2013).…”