Nurturing improvement networks: practical lessons from our SQC funding programme

Our Supporting Q Connections (SQC) funding programme was created to strengthen something we know improvement depends on, but that often goes unseen: the relationships, networks and local infrastructure that allow improvement practice to take place.

This was Q’s first rolling grant programme. Instead of a single annual call, we decided make funding available throughout the year. We wanted Q members to be able to apply the moment their ideas and local opportunities were most active, so created a funding approach to reflect that. The rolling model helped us support work that was timely and relevant. 

Between 2022 and 2025, SQC supported 41 member-led projects. We’ve been reflecting on what these projects tell us about how improvement networks form, grow and sustain themselves when people are trying to change practice across boundaries, often with limited resources. For people convening, supporting, or participating in improvement work, the learning feels highly transferable.

SQC aimed to support national and locally-owned improvement by creating the conditions for people to connect, learn together and act.

We repeatedly saw that a relatively light-touch approach can unlock activity that matters to people. Having time to convene, capacity to coordinate, and permission to focus on relationships enabled these networks to grow.

Funded teams told us that our support helped them bring people together more regularly and with greater purpose, reach beyond existing connections, and strengthen a shared improvement identity. 

Across projects, improvement gathered pace when people were supported to connect across organisational, professional and geographical boundaries over time. What made these connections effective was creating regular spaces for ongoing, active exchange alongside sharing learning. 

This was seen in both focused initiatives, such as the Safety Improvement Coffee Trials centred on Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF), and broader system spaces like the Hertfordshire and West Essex Quality Improvement Network. In each case, crossing boundaries helped participants reframe challenges and identify new solutions. 

A similar dynamic emerged in the Perioperative and Prehabilitation care forum, where clinicians, voluntary sector partners, policy organisations and people with lived experience explored improvement from multiple perspectives. This sustained cross‑pollination of ideas shifted thinking beyond organisational silos and supported improvement across whole pathways.

Q is founded on a belief in peer connection, and experiences from SQC projects repeatedly reinforced that. Peer-led spaces consistently generated more energy and momentum, particularly when members helped shape them. 

For example, the revitalised Coaching Improvement group was designed around member feedback, transforming it from a quiet forum into an active learning space. Similarly, the Hertfordshire and West Essex Quality Improvement Network co‑developed its agendas and formats with members. 

These examples show that peer involvement is not just valuable but practical: sustaining engagement depends as much on investing in people who convene and hold learning spaces as on tools or improvement methods.

Across projects, even small amounts of dedicated coordination proved critical to sustaining improvement communities. Having someone explicitly holding the work – organising sessions, following up conversations and providing continuity – made a clear difference to momentum and connection over time. 

The Community Hospitals group described having a dedicated programme management and administrative support as a ​“game changer”, enabling continuity and engagement that volunteer effort alone could not sustain. This pattern was echoed in system‑level networks such as the Hertfordshire and West Essex Quality Improvement Network and the East of England Improvement Network, where limited coordination time distinguished functioning communities from sporadic activity. 

Where this role was absent, improvement work risked becoming episodic, particularly where there was short‑term or inconsistent funding.

Several projects avoided over‑reliance on a single convenor by deliberately sharing ownership across a small group. 

Joy in Work invited participants to shape sessions and contribute content, encouraging attendees to become more actively involved. Similarly, the Community Hospitals group sustained momentum by supporting administrators and members to take on facilitation roles. 

Inviting people into even small, clearly bounded roles increased their engagement and commitment, as contributing felt meaningful and manageable. 

Effective networks take time to establish. Several projects found that early progress was slower than they expected, particularly where they prioritised co‑design and cross‑system collaboration. But this investment paid off in stronger relationships and more sustained engagement over time. The most significant learning often only emerged after an initial period of experimentation, reinforcing that effective networks need time to settle, adapt and build trust before their full value becomes visible. 

This learning from SQC also showed how difficult it can be to evidence the impact of relationship-centred improvement. Change often unfolds indirectly and over time, and traditional measures rarely capture what matters most, such as trust, confidence and shared purpose. 

In Joy in Work, participants valued the opportunity to reconnect with purpose, reflect with peers and explore joy as part of improvement, even though these outcomes were not easily reduced to metrics. Yet these relational foundations often enabled people to sustain improvement in demanding contexts. Similarly, the Community Hospitals Association and the Safety Improvement Coffee Trials found that confidence, capability and shared understanding grew gradually, only becoming visible once networks had established a regular rhythm.

Across the programme, some of the most valuable outcomes came from creating spaces that were practical, relational and meaningful, laying foundations for future improvement even when immediate impact was hard to measure.

Networks grew when members could rely on regular, predictable touchpoints that fitted alongside day‑to‑day work. The Community Hospitals group focused on a consistent rhythm of events that people could plan around, and the Coaching Improvement group rebuilt momentum by establishing a clear programme structure that made participation feel manageable and purposeful.

Relevance mattered just as much. When members could quickly recognise their own priorities and experiences reflected in a space, engagement followed. This was evident in the Perioperative Care – Prehabilitation group, who deliberately brought together professionals and people with lived experience, and in Joy in Work, where participants sharing concerns about pressure and burnout created immediate resonance and sustained engagement.

Improvement networks thrive when connections around real challenges are intentional, supported by coordination, shaped by members, and given time to learn and adapt together. Looking ahead, we want to stay close to the work that has been seeded. 

We’ll be encouraging members to share updates on our website in case studies and in the group spaces about their impact and how they’re continuing to influence their local systems. And we’ll keep drawing on our learning from this programme as we design and iterate our future programmes and services.