How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?

被引:64
作者
Rubenstein, Lisa [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Khodyakov, Dmitry [1 ]
Hempel, Susanne [1 ]
Danz, Margie [1 ,2 ]
Salem-Schatz, Susanne [5 ]
Foy, Robbie [6 ]
O'Neill, Sean [1 ,7 ]
Dalal, Siddhartha [1 ]
Shekelle, Paul [1 ,8 ]
机构
[1] RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA 90401 USA
[2] Vet Affairs Greater Los Angeles Sepulveda, North Hills, CA 91343 USA
[3] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Med, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[4] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Sch Publ Hlth, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[5] HealthCare Qual Initiat, Newton, MA 02459 USA
[6] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Hlth Sci, Leeds LS2 9JT, W Yorkshire, England
[7] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[8] Vet Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare Syst, Los Angeles, CA 90073 USA
关键词
continuous quality improvement; quality improvement; consultants; health care organization; CARE; PUBLICATIONS; DEPRESSION; DISEASE;
D O I
10.1093/intqhc/mzt085
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are foundational approaches to improving healthcare delivery. Publications using the term CQI, however, are methodologically heterogeneous, and labels other than CQI are used to signify relevant approaches. Standards for identifying the use of CQI based on its key methodological features could enable more effective learning across quality improvement (QI) efforts. The objective was to identify essential methodological features for recognizing CQI. Previous work with a 12-member international expert panel identified reliably abstracted CQI methodological features. We tested which features met rigorous a priori standards as essential features of CQI using a three-phase online modified-Delphi process. Primarily United States and Canada. 119 QI experts randomly assigned into four on-line panels. Participants rated CQI features and discussed their answers using online, anonymous and asynchronous discussion boards. We analyzed ratings quantitatively and discussion threads qualitatively. Panel consensus on definitional CQI features. Seventy-nine (66) panelists completed the process. Thirty-three completers self-identified as QI researchers, 18 as QI practitioners and 28 as both equally. The features systematic data guided activities, designing with local conditions in mind and iterative development and testing met a priori standards as essential CQI features. Qualitative analyses showed cross-cutting themes focused on differences between QI and CQI. We found consensus among a broad group of CQI researchers and practitioners on three features as essential for identifying QI work more specifically as CQI. All three features are needed as a minimum standard for recognizing CQI methods.
引用
收藏
页码:6 / 15
页数:10
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
Angus D, 2006, IMPLEMENT SCI, V1, DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-1-4
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2003, BREAKTHROUGH SERIES
[3]   The 100 000 Lives Campaign - Setting a goal and a deadline for improving health care quality [J].
Berwick, DM ;
Calkins, DR ;
McCannon, CJ ;
Hackbarth, AD .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2006, 295 (03) :324-327
[4]   CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AS AN IDEAL IN HEALTH-CARE [J].
BERWICK, DM .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1989, 320 (01) :53-56
[5]   Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory [J].
Bradley, Elizabeth H. ;
Curry, Leslie A. ;
Devers, Kelly J. .
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2007, 42 (04) :1758-1772
[6]   Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments [J].
Brennan, Sue E. ;
Bosch, Marije ;
Buchan, Heather ;
Green, Sally E. .
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2012, 7
[7]  
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), 2009, MOSB MED DICT
[8]   Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance [J].
Craig, Peter ;
Dieppe, Paul ;
Macintyre, Sally ;
Michie, Susan ;
Nazareth, Irwin ;
Petticrew, Mark .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 337 (7676) :979-983
[9]   Identifying quality improvement intervention evaluations: is consensus achievable? [J].
Danz, M. S. ;
Rubenstein, L. V. ;
Hempel, S. ;
Foy, R. ;
Suttorp, M. ;
Farmer, M. M. ;
Shekelle, P. G. .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2010, 19 (04) :279-283
[10]  
Deming W., 1986, OUT CRISIS