ArticleLearning health systems2025
Evaluation of four learning collaboratives for improving diagnostic excellence in radiology.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of four learning collaboratives for improving diagnostic excellence in radiology.Learning health systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Learning collaboratives are frequently used within healthcare to facilitate practice improvement through collaboration among clinical teams across multiple organizations. The aim of this study was to use the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) collaborative taxonomy to identify collaborative elements that influence successful implementation of clinical practices and sustain improvements in four radiology learning collaboratives. Methods: We used an ethnographic approach to evaluate a learning collaborative network using the AHRQ collaborative taxonomy. Data collection included observations, interviews, and review of site performance metrics. Results: We identified four themes that spanned the four AHRQ taxonomy primary elements (innovation, time, communication, social system) that explained the influence of the collaborative structure on site improvements and sustained success: (1) structured education in quality improvement and access to quality improvement tools provides a framework for quality improvement; (2) an expert-guided, structured improvement process sets the pace of improvement; (3) intentional participant interaction and contribution in meetings reinforces accountability; and (4) credible leadership and facilitation sustains participation. Conclusions: While we identified all four primary elements of the AHRQ framework as important for a successful learning collaborative, social system elements were particularly dominant in their influence on sites' success. In particular, expert, credible leaders who provided the right tools, at the right time and pace, with constructive guidance were critical for maintaining site engagement and driving problem-solving.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.