Review the test, not the people

Use the review to understand observations, context, and the next decision—not to assign blame or overstate a small sample.

Bring the aim, measure definitions, observations, and relevant workflow context into the discussion. Separate what the team directly saw from its interpretation. If a question concerns a regulated, safety-critical, or sensitive practice, route it to the appropriate trained role and approved local material.

A practical learning-review sequence

  1. 1

    Restate the aim and boundary

    Confirm the workflow, period, and intended change the team actually tested.

  2. 2

    Read the measure definition aloud

    Check the unit, numerator, denominator, source, and period before discussing the result.

  3. 3

    Share observations

    Report the recorded values and specific workflow observations separately from explanations.

  4. 4

    Name unexpected effects and missing evidence

    Record what changed, what did not get observed, and questions that remain open.

  5. 5

    Choose and record one next decision

    Repeat, adapt, share for discussion, or stop; note the rationale, decision owner role, and when the team will revisit it.

Completed example: week-four review

Fictional Harborview sample; 20 entries reviewed in week four.

Recorded evidence

Observed

15 of 20 sampled entries named a next owner, compared with 12 of 20 in the first sample. The facilitator reported that the field was left blank in several notes when the meeting ended without an agreed next owner.

  • Week-four completeness: 15/20 (75%).
  • First sample completeness: 12/20 (60%).
  • Source: fictional manual review of meeting-note entries.
Interpretation and question

Interpreted and still open

The team considered the higher final sample a promising local signal, not proof that the field caused the change. It did not yet know whether the pattern would hold in another meeting or whether note completion added time.

  • Decision: adapt and repeat the same bounded test for another review window.
  • Reason: the samples are small and one workflow may not represent other contexts.
  • Open question: does the revised prompt make the next owner easier to identify without adding avoidable meeting work?