Can evidence-based medicine and clinical quality improvement learn from each other?

Paul Glasziou, Greg Ogrinc, Steve Goodman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The considerable gap between what we know from research and what is done in clinical practice is well known. Proposed responses include the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Clinical Quality Improvement. EBM has focused more on 'doing the right things' - based on external research evidence - whereas Quality Improvement (QI) has focused more on 'doing things right' - based on local processes. However, these are complementary and in combination direct us how to 'do the right things right'. This article examines the differences and similarities in the two approaches and proposes that by integrating the bedside application, the methodological development and the training of these complementary disciplines both would gain.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalBMJ Quality and Safety
Volume20
Issue numberSUPPL. 1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2011

Fingerprint

Evidence-Based Medicine
Quality Improvement
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Can evidence-based medicine and clinical quality improvement learn from each other? / Glasziou, Paul; Ogrinc, Greg; Goodman, Steve.

In: BMJ Quality and Safety, Vol. 20, No. SUPPL. 1, 04.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Glasziou, Paul ; Ogrinc, Greg ; Goodman, Steve. / Can evidence-based medicine and clinical quality improvement learn from each other?. In: BMJ Quality and Safety. 2011 ; Vol. 20, No. SUPPL. 1.
@article{3561f915875540e1bf724c22e91590b3,
title = "Can evidence-based medicine and clinical quality improvement learn from each other?",
abstract = "The considerable gap between what we know from research and what is done in clinical practice is well known. Proposed responses include the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Clinical Quality Improvement. EBM has focused more on 'doing the right things' - based on external research evidence - whereas Quality Improvement (QI) has focused more on 'doing things right' - based on local processes. However, these are complementary and in combination direct us how to 'do the right things right'. This article examines the differences and similarities in the two approaches and proposes that by integrating the bedside application, the methodological development and the training of these complementary disciplines both would gain.",
author = "Paul Glasziou and Greg Ogrinc and Steve Goodman",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1136/bmjqs.2010.046524",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
journal = "BMJ Quality and Safety",
issn = "2044-5415",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "SUPPL. 1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can evidence-based medicine and clinical quality improvement learn from each other?

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Ogrinc, Greg

AU - Goodman, Steve

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - The considerable gap between what we know from research and what is done in clinical practice is well known. Proposed responses include the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Clinical Quality Improvement. EBM has focused more on 'doing the right things' - based on external research evidence - whereas Quality Improvement (QI) has focused more on 'doing things right' - based on local processes. However, these are complementary and in combination direct us how to 'do the right things right'. This article examines the differences and similarities in the two approaches and proposes that by integrating the bedside application, the methodological development and the training of these complementary disciplines both would gain.

AB - The considerable gap between what we know from research and what is done in clinical practice is well known. Proposed responses include the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Clinical Quality Improvement. EBM has focused more on 'doing the right things' - based on external research evidence - whereas Quality Improvement (QI) has focused more on 'doing things right' - based on local processes. However, these are complementary and in combination direct us how to 'do the right things right'. This article examines the differences and similarities in the two approaches and proposes that by integrating the bedside application, the methodological development and the training of these complementary disciplines both would gain.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957989309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957989309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.046524

DO - 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.046524

M3 - Article

C2 - 21450763

AN - SCOPUS:79957989309

VL - 20

JO - BMJ Quality and Safety

JF - BMJ Quality and Safety

SN - 2044-5415

IS - SUPPL. 1

ER -