# What Do We Know About Contemporary Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Training Curricula in Health Workers? A Rapid Scoping Review

## TL;DR

This review examines how quality improvement and patient safety training for health workers has evolved, highlighting gaps and innovations, especially in high-income countries.

## Contribution

The study maps global disparities and innovations in QI/PS training curricula, emphasizing the need for equitable and modern education strategies.

## Key findings

- Most QI/PS curricula are from the US and target physicians, especially residents and fellows.
- Post-2020 curricula show innovation with online formats and gamification, but global coverage remains limited.
- Structured QI/PS training is notably absent in Europe, Asia, and Africa based on English-language literature.

## Abstract

Background and Objective: Despite growing emphasis on quality and safety in healthcare, there remains a limited understanding of how Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (QI/PS) training for health workers has evolved in response to global events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan. This rapid scoping review aimed to not only identify existing curricula but also uncover trends, innovation gaps, and global inequities in QI/PS education—providing timely insights for reshaping future training strategies. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Scopus for English-language studies published between January 2020 and April 2024, describing QI and/or PS curricula across graduate, postgraduate, and continuing education levels. All healthcare worker groups were eligible, with no geographic limitations. Two reviewers conducted independent screening and data extraction; a third verified the results. Results: Among 3290 records, 74 curricula met inclusion criteria, with a majority originating from the US (58, 78.4%) and targeting physicians—especially residents and fellows (43/46, 93.5%). Only 27% of curricula were multidisciplinary. While traditional didactic (66.2%) and interactive (73%) approaches remained prevalent, curricula launched after 2020 introduced novel formats such as Massive Open Online Courses and gamification, with long-term programs uniformly leveraging web-based platforms. Common thematic content included Root Cause Analysis, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, QI tools, communication skills, and incident reporting. English-language peer-reviewed published literature indicated a marked lack of structured QI/PS training in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Conclusions: This review reveals both an uneven development and fragmentation in global QI/PS training efforts, alongside emerging opportunities catalyzed by digital transformation and pandemic-era innovation. The findings highlight a critical gap: while interest in QI/PS is growing, scalable, inclusive, and evidence-based curricula remain largely concentrated in a few high-income countries. By mapping these disparities and innovations, this review provides actionable direction for advancing more equitable and modern QI/PS education worldwide, whilst showcasing the need to systematically delve into QI/PS training in underrepresented regions.