The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement
-
Jt Comm J Qual Improv · Oct 2001
ReviewDeveloping and deploying a patient safety program in a large health care delivery system: you can't fix what you don't know about.
The Veterans Administration (VA) identified patient safety as a high-priority issue in 1997 and implemented the Patient Safety Improvement (PSI) initiative throughout its entire health care system. In spring 1998 the External Panel on Patient Safety System Design recommended alternative methods to enhance reporting and thereby improve patient safety. REDESIGNING THE PSI INITIATIVE: The VA began redesigning the PSI initiative in late 1998. The dedicated National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) was established. Using the panel's recommendations as a jumping-off point, NCPS began to identify known and suspected obstacles to implementation (such as possible punitive consequences and additional workload). NCPS adopted a prioritization scoring method, the Safety Assessment Code (SAC) Matrix, for close calls and adverse events, which requires assessing the event's actual or potential severity and the probability of occurrence. The SAC Matrix specifies actions that must be taken for given scores. Use of the SAC score permits a consistent handling of reports throughout the VA system and a rational selection of cases to be considered. A system for performing a root cause analysis (RCA) was developed to guide caregivers at the frontline. This system includes a computer-aided tool, a flipbook containing a series of six questions, and reporting of the findings back to the reporter. The final step requires that the facility's chief executive officer "concur" or "nonconcur" on each recommended corrective action. The RCA team outlines how the effectiveness of the corrective action will be evaluated to verify that the action has had the intended effect, and it ascertains that there were no unintended negative consequences. ⋯ It is essential to design and implement a system that takes into account the concerns of the frontline personnel and is aimed at being a tool for learning and not accountability. The system must have as its primary focus the dissemination of positive actions that reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities that have been identified, not a counting exercise of the number of reports.
-
Jt Comm J Qual Improv · Sep 2001
ReviewThe impact of staffing and the organization of work on patient outcomes and health care workers in health care organizations.
Numerous reports in the popular press express concern about the restructuring or lowering of staffing levels in health care organizations and the impact on the quality of patient care. Overtime and other extended shifts also represent work stresses for health care workers. This article reviews the research literature on the relationships among staffing, organization of work, and patient outcomes, and it discusses research findings on the relationship between staffing and the health of health care workers. RESEARCH ON STAFFING, ORGANIZATION, AND PATIENT OUTCOMES/STAFF WELL-BEING: Safe staffing level requirements have been identified for nursing homes, but only in extremely limited cases for hospitals, home care, or other health settings. There is little information about the impact of staffing levels and the organization of work on health personnel or on patient outcomes. There is almost no information about staffing and patient outcomes in home health and ambulatory care. Much of the research on staffing and quality has been discipline specific; future research should reflect the interdisciplinary nature of health care delivery rather than the impact of a particular occupation. ⋯ Research is conducted to increase the scientific base per se and to inform decision making. Who should decide staffing levels and the organization of work? Professionals, employers/owners, the government, and consumers all have significant interest in staffing levels and the organization of care. Improving health care quality requires research about the critical staffing and organization of work variables. This requires obtaining appropriate data, conducting the research, and widely disseminating the findings.
-
Jt Comm J Qual Improv · Sep 1999
ReviewPooling research results: benefits and limitations of meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis, the systematic and quantitative synthesis of evidence, has developed considerably in the 1990s and is emerging as an important methodology in medical decision making. As a research methodology, meta-analysis has benefits and limitations that must be acknowledged in its application. ⋯ Meta-analysis has promoted the sense that obtaining evidence is a global enterprise and that complete information needs to be evaluated and synthesized to obtain the most unbiased results. Analyzing sources of bias and diversity is essential to performing, understanding, and using meta-analyses in medical care.
-
Jt Comm J Qual Improv · Sep 1999
ReviewOne size does not fit all: questions to answer before intervening to change physician behavior.
Many interventions have been conducted to change physician behavior, but there is not much evidence regarding their effectiveness. A list of questions is proposed for those who would attempt such interventions: 1. Does the behavior (or decision making) need to be changed? This implies the next two questions. 1a. Is there a logical, evidence-based argument that one decision alternative is preferable for a particular situation? If the would-be behavior changer cannot make an evidence-based argument for changing behavior, there is little moral authority to intervene. 1b. Is there evidence that physicians are not choosing this decision alternative when they should? Interventions are often prompted by evidence that utilization of an alternative was too high or low, but physicians' decisions are not the only determinants of utilization. 2. What is the problem with the decision making? Common sense suggests that different problems require different solutions. Yet interventions are often pursued in the absence of clear information about the reasons physicians did not exhibit the preferred behavior. 3. How could the decision making best be changed? Finding the cognitive problems that caused "wrong" behavior should directly lead to the design of simple, targeted, effective interventions to change this behavior. The judgment and decision making psychology literature suggests that general instruction in reasoning and probability may improve judgments and decision processes. ⋯ Physicians' behavior appears to be resistant to change. Understanding why the behavior should be changed and what caused it may make the process of designing interventions more complicated. The resulting interventions, however, are more likely to be simple and successful.
-
Jt Comm J Qual Improv · May 1998
ReviewQuality management in medical specialties: the use of channels and dikes in improving health care in The Netherlands.
In 1989 a Dutch national policy was instituted to ensure that quality management is the responsibility of both health care professionals and management, with input from insurers and patients. In turn, quality management of medical specialists remained to a large extent self-regulatory, with accountability toward third-party payers and patients. Three programs for quality management-peer review, guidelines, and visitation-have sufficiently persuaded patient organizations and care insurers about medical specialists' ability to ensure the quality of the care they provide. ⋯ Profession-driven peer review, practice guidelines, and visitation programs have been effective support tools for quality management in The Netherlands. Future challenges involve creating more synergy among these programs and between the profession-based quality management approaches and recently introduced hospital-based quality systems and maintaining the trust between third-party payers and patients.