Friday 12 Apr | 11:00-12:15<\/strong><\/p> Format: Presentation<\/em> Amar Shah<\/strong><\/a> East London NHS Foundation Trust, Royal College of Psychiatrists and NHS England, England (Chair)<\/p> This topic is essential for the Forum because even experienced improvement science researchers, at times, struggle to publish their work. In part, the problem is that the field is relatively young, and the community is still working through the best approach for representing the work in the form of scholarly publications. During this session, we will describe the results of our scoping review study on effective (and less effective) writing styles for improvement science. We will also describe findings related to common pitfalls and strengths in project design and execution. Participants at all levels of experience will not want to miss this high-yield session.<\/p> As a result of this session, participants will be able to:<\/p> Erin Spicer<\/strong><\/a> London Health Sciences Center, Canada<\/p> Dr Mark Goldszmidt<\/strong><\/a> London Health Sciences Center, Canada<\/p> \u00a0<\/p> Learn about three recent high-impact publications from prominent researchers and improvers across the UK. John Fitzsimons, Julie Reed and Nicola Burgess will do a rapid-share of a recent publication that has high applicability for improvement practice. This will be followed by a dialogue between the authors and the chance to pose your questions. John Fitzsimons<\/strong><\/a> Children\u2019s Health Ireland, Ireland<\/p> Julie Reed<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0Julie Reed Consultancy, England<\/p>
Stream: Science<\/em>
Content filters: Recommended for those new to quality improvement; Recommended for those working at system level in QI<\/em><\/p>
PART 1: The good, bad, and ugly of improvement science publications: a scoping review<\/strong><\/p>
<\/ul>
PART 2: Improvement science publications in practice<\/strong><\/p>
Objectives:<\/p>
<\/li>
<\/ul>