Cargando…

How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?

OBJECTIVE: 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rubenstein, Lisa, Khodyakov, Dmitry, Hempel, Susanne, Danz, Margie, Salem-Schatz, Susanne, Foy, Robbie, O'Neill, Sean, Dalal, Siddhartha, Shekelle, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24311732
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzt085
_version_ 1782302429718511616
author Rubenstein, Lisa
Khodyakov, Dmitry
Hempel, Susanne
Danz, Margie
Salem-Schatz, Susanne
Foy, Robbie
O'Neill, Sean
Dalal, Siddhartha
Shekelle, Paul
author_facet Rubenstein, Lisa
Khodyakov, Dmitry
Hempel, Susanne
Danz, Margie
Salem-Schatz, Susanne
Foy, Robbie
O'Neill, Sean
Dalal, Siddhartha
Shekelle, Paul
author_sort Rubenstein, Lisa
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: 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. SETTING: Primarily United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 119 QI experts randomly assigned into four on-line panels. INTERVENTION(S): Participants rated CQI features and discussed their answers using online, anonymous and asynchronous discussion boards. We analyzed ratings quantitatively and discussion threads qualitatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Panel consensus on definitional CQI features. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3914565
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39145652014-02-05 How can we recognize continuous quality improvement? Rubenstein, Lisa Khodyakov, Dmitry Hempel, Susanne Danz, Margie Salem-Schatz, Susanne Foy, Robbie O'Neill, Sean Dalal, Siddhartha Shekelle, Paul Int J Qual Health Care Papers OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: 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. SETTING: Primarily United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 119 QI experts randomly assigned into four on-line panels. INTERVENTION(S): Participants rated CQI features and discussed their answers using online, anonymous and asynchronous discussion boards. We analyzed ratings quantitatively and discussion threads qualitatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Panel consensus on definitional CQI features. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. Oxford University Press 2014-02 2013-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3914565/ /pubmed/24311732 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzt085 Text en © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Papers
Rubenstein, Lisa
Khodyakov, Dmitry
Hempel, Susanne
Danz, Margie
Salem-Schatz, Susanne
Foy, Robbie
O'Neill, Sean
Dalal, Siddhartha
Shekelle, Paul
How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
title How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
title_full How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
title_fullStr How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
title_full_unstemmed How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
title_short How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
title_sort how can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
topic Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24311732
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzt085
work_keys_str_mv AT rubensteinlisa howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement
AT khodyakovdmitry howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement
AT hempelsusanne howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement
AT danzmargie howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement
AT salemschatzsusanne howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement
AT foyrobbie howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement
AT oneillsean howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement
AT dalalsiddhartha howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement
AT shekellepaul howcanwerecognizecontinuousqualityimprovement