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
[21]   Conducting Online Expert panels: a feasibility and experimental replicability study [J].
Khodyakov, Dmitry ;
Hempel, Susanne ;
Rubenstein, Lisa ;
Shekelle, Paul ;
Foy, Robbie ;
Salem-Schatz, Susanne ;
O'Neill, Sean ;
Danz, Margie ;
Dalal, Siddhartha .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2011, 11
[22]   Evaluation of competency - An ACGME perspective [J].
Leach, DC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 2000, 79 (05) :487-489
[23]   Organizational Cost of Quality Improvement for Depression Care [J].
Liu, Chuan-Fen ;
Rubenstein, Lisa V. ;
Kirchner, JoAnn E. ;
Fortney, John C. ;
Perkins, Mark W. ;
Ober, Scott K. ;
Pyne, Jeffrey M. ;
Chaney, Edmund F. .
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2009, 44 (01) :225-244
[24]   Miles to Go: An Introduction to the 5 Million Lives Campaign [J].
McCannon, C. Joseph ;
Hackbarth, Andrew D. ;
Griffin, Frances A. .
JOINT COMMISSION JOURNAL ON QUALITY AND PATIENT SAFETY, 2007, 33 (08) :477-484
[25]  
McLaughlin C.P., 2005, CONTINUOUS QUALITY I, V3rd
[26]   Identifying continuous quality improvement publications: what makes an improvement intervention 'CQI'? [J].
O'Neill, Sean M. ;
Hempel, Susanne ;
Lim, Yee-Wei ;
Danz, Marjorie S. ;
Foy, Robbie ;
Suttorp, Marika J. ;
Shekelle, Paul G. ;
Rubenstein, Lisa V. .
BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2011, 20 (12) :1011-1019
[27]   The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration [J].
Ogrinc, G. ;
Mooney, S. E. ;
Estrada, C. ;
Foster, T. ;
Goldmann, D. ;
Hall, L. W. ;
Huizinga, M. M. ;
Liu, S. K. ;
Mills, P. ;
Neily, J. ;
Nelson, W. ;
Pronovost, P. J. ;
Provost, L. ;
Rubenstein, L. V. ;
Speroff, T. ;
Splaine, M. ;
Thomson, R. ;
Tomolo, A. M. ;
Watts, B. .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2008, 17 :13-32
[28]   Finding order in heterogeneity: types of quality-improvement intervention publications [J].
Rubenstein, L. V. ;
Hempel, S. ;
Farmer, M. M. ;
Asch, S. M. ;
Yano, E. M. ;
Dougherty, D. ;
Shekelle, P. W. .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2008, 17 (06) :403-408
[29]   Evidence-based quality improvement: The state of the science [J].
Shojania, KG ;
Grimshaw, JM .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2005, 24 (01) :138-150
[30]  
Stamatis D.H., 2004, Six sigma fundamentals: A complete guide to the system, methods and tools