7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Does quality improvement improve quality?

      ,
      Future Hospital Journal
      Royal College of Physicians

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p id="d4000868e106">Although quality improvement (QI) is frequently advocated as a way of addressing the problems with healthcare, evidence of its effectiveness has remained very mixed. The reasons for this are varied but the growing literature highlights particular challenges. Fidelity in the application of QI methods is often variable. QI work is often pursued through time-limited, small-scale projects, led by professionals who may lack the expertise, power or resources to instigate the changes required. There is insufficient attention to rigorous evaluation of improvement and to sharing the lessons of successes and failures. Too many QI interventions are seen as ‘magic bullets’ that will produce improvement in any situation, regardless of context. Too much improvement work is undertaken in isolation at a local level, failing to pool resources and develop collective solutions, and introducing new hazards in the process. This article considers these challenges and proposes four key ways in which QI might itself be improved. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic review of the application of quality improvement methodologies from the manufacturing industry to surgical healthcare.

          The demand for the highest-quality patient care coupled with pressure on funding has led to the increasing use of quality improvement (QI) methodologies from the manufacturing industry. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the application and effectiveness of these QI methodologies to the field of surgery. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Health Business(™) Elite, the Health Management Information Consortium and PsycINFO(®) were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Empirical studies were included that implemented a described QI methodology to surgical care and analysed a named outcome statistically. Some 34 of 1595 articles identified met the inclusion criteria after consensus from two independent investigators. Nine studies described continuous quality improvement (CQI), five Six Sigma, five total quality management (TQM), five plan-do-study-act (PDSA) or plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles, five statistical process control (SPC) or statistical quality control (SQC), four Lean and one Lean Six Sigma; 20 of the studies were undertaken in the USA. The most common aims were to reduce complications or improve outcomes (11), to reduce infection (7), and to reduce theatre delays (7). There was one randomized controlled trial. QI methodologies from industry can have significant effects on improving surgical care, from reducing infection rates to increasing operating room efficiency. The evidence is generally of suboptimal quality, and rigorous randomized multicentre studies are needed to bring evidence-based management into the same league as evidence-based medicine. Copyright © 2011 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Reality check for checklists

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Large scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals: mixed method evaluation

              Objectives To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation’s Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention The SPI1 was a compound (multi-component) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration—monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items)—there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission recording increased from 40% (93) to 69% (165) in control hospitals and from 37% (141) to 78% (296) in SPI1 hospitals (odds ratio for “difference in difference” 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.008). Use of a formal scoring system for patients with pneumonia also increased over time (from 2% (102) to 23% (111) in control hospitals and from 2% (170) to 9% (189) in SPI1 hospitals), which favoured controls and was not significant (0.3, 0.02 to 3.4; P=0.173). There were no improvements in the proportion of prescription errors and no effects that could be attributed to SPI1 in non-targeted generic areas (such as enhanced safety culture). On some measures, the lack of effect could be because compliance was already high at baseline (such as use of steroids in over 85% of cases where indicated), but even when there was more room for improvement (such as in quality of medical history taking), there was no significant additional net effect of SPI1. There were no changes over time or between control and SPI1 hospitals in errors or rates of adverse events in patients in medical wards. Mortality increased from 11% (27) to 16% (39) among controls and decreased from 17% (63) to 13% (49) among SPI1 hospitals, but the risk adjusted difference was not significant (0.5, 0.2 to 1.4; P=0.085). Poor care was a contributing factor in four of the 178 deaths identified by review of case notes. The survey of patients showed no significant differences apart from an increase in perception of cleanliness in favour of SPI1 hospitals. Conclusions The introduction of SPI1 was associated with improvements in one of the types of clinical process studied (monitoring of vital signs) and one measure of staff perceptions of organisational climate. There was no additional effect of SPI1 on other targeted issues nor on other measures of generic organisational strengthening.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Future Hospital Journal
                Future Hosp J
                Royal College of Physicians
                2055-3323
                2055-3331
                October 03 2016
                October 2016
                October 03 2016
                October 2016
                : 3
                : 3
                : 191-194
                Article
                10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191
                6465806
                31098223
                014cc391-5516-4cf0-9eff-5eab4d77c4d5
                © 2016
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article