Issues in the assessment of continuous quality improvement implementation in health care organizations

Abstract

Increased understanding of the empirical benefits and costs of continuous quality improvement in health care organizations is heavily contingent upon the continued development and improvement of measures of continuous quality improvement implementation.

Some Initial Findings and Policy Implications of the Pathways to Desistance Study

“…Other disciplines, such as business and marketing have long used consumer feedback to inform their practices, and this approach has been adopted more recently by health care organizations as they attempt to reduce cost and improve service quality (Chowanec, 1994; Counte & Meurer, 2001). However, with few exceptions (Loughran, Godfrey, & Mengers, 2010; Sedlak, 2008), juvenile justice system professionals have overlooked their primary client as a resource for understanding how experiences in the system are “received” and how those experiences might be related to outcomes.…”

Building capacity for continuous quality improvement (CQI): A pilot study

“…In a previous review, approximately half of CQI studies used only self-reported staff measures (Schouten et al, 2008). The varying understanding of CQI and the pressure organizations feel to participate in such efforts may result in biased assessments (Counte & Meurer, 2001). We utilized two strategies proposed by Counte and Meurer (2001) to address this concern, we included respondents at both the administrator and clinician levels, and conducted assessments of the extent of CQI implementation through program documentation, staff reports, and in-depth interviews conducted by trained field staff rather than the CQI researchers, therefore reducing the potential for bias.…”

Systems Redesign: A Quality Improvement Initiative at a Tertiary-Care Veterans Affairs Medical Center

“…One of the key factors leading to failure of sustainable quality improvement changes is when the staff members carrying out those changes are not included in the decision-making process. This causes lack of team cohesion, a poorly understood conception of the process, and an inability to make the changes proposed [4,6]. Thus, every team should involve members responsible for the necessary daily actions of a process.…”