Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership

8.6k citations
353 papers ·

Impact in

Papers in

Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership

304 papers receiving 8.5k citations

Peers

Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership
Comparison fields: 5 of 227
  • General Health Professions 1.6k
  • Research and Theory 53
  • Management Science and Operations Research 598
  • Biochemistry 257
  • Clinical Psychology 885
Replace Men's Health Forum with:
Men's Health Forum United Kingdom
East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust United Kingdom
Whittington Health NHS Trust United Kingdom
Bolton NHS Foundation Trust United Kingdom
United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration United Kingdom
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care Germany
National Audit Office United Kingdom
Bristol City Council United Kingdom
Royal Buckinghamshire Hospital United Kingdom
Cwm Taf University Health Board United Kingdom
Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership relative to Men's Health Forum United Kingdom Men's Health Forum's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×4.2×
Men's Health Forum · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing scholars working at Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research produced by authors working at Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by papers produced at Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership more than expected).

Fields of papers published by authors at Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership at the time of their publication. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers affiliated with Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership at the time of their publication.

About Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership

In recent decades, authors affiliated with Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership have published 353 papers, which have received a total of 8.6k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 15 papers in Health Information Management, 19 papers in Biochemistry, 35 papers in Hematology, 79 papers in General Health Professions and 14 papers in Applied Psychology on the topics of Blood transfusion and management (19 papers), Erythrocyte Function and Pathophysiology (15 papers), Primary Care and Health Outcomes (14 papers), COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies (14 papers), SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research (13 papers), Healthcare Quality and Management (12 papers), Blood donation and transfusion practices (11 papers) and Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life (11 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on General Health Professions (1.6k citations), Research and Theory (53 citations), Management Science and Operations Research (598 citations), Biochemistry (257 citations) and Clinical Psychology (885 citations). Authors at Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership collaborate with scholars in United Kingdom, United States and Canada and have published in prestigious journals including BMJ Open, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Technometrics, BMJ and Value in Health. Some of Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership's most productive authors include George E. P. Box, Jerard Seghatchian, R. Daniel Meyer, Thierry Burnouf, H. Williams, Jean Amiral, Nancy M. Dixon, Marianna H. Antonelou, Hadi Goubran and Norman Jackson.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore institutions with similar magnitude of impact