Continuous quality improvement in the ambulatory endoscopy center

Abstract

What does quality assessment have to do with the practicing gastroenterologist? Why should one spend the time and effort to incorporate CQI activities into an already busy practice? First and foremost, quality improvement should directly benefit the patient by ensuring that they receive the highest quality of care possible. For example, comparing endoscopic use or outcomes, such as procedure success or complications, with national standards or other endoscopists in the same community may identify physicians who could benefit from additional training. Similar analyses may likewise identify outstanding physicians who might serve as resources for other physicians. Surveys of patient satisfaction may reveal deficiencies, which might be unknown to a physician who is otherwise technically excellent; deficiencies that would never have been uncovered by traditional measures of quality. Second, applying the techniques of CQI to study one's own practice can provide a competitive edge when vying for managed care or corporate contracts. In this regard, CQI can be used to document physician or practice performance through tracking of endoscopic use, procedure success and complication rates, and patient satisfaction. Finally, the rising concern among various patient advocacy groups has led to an increased emphasis on quality improvement, and in most cases it is a required activity as part of the accreditation process. Steps to quality improvement There is more to quality improvement than simply selecting and implementing a performance improvement plan. A number of steps have been suggested to achieve fundamental improvement in the quality of medical care [3]. The first is to use outcomes management for improvement rather than for judgment. One of the major criticisms of QA is that it will be used to judge physicians providing care. It is feared that CQI will be used to identify poor performers who will then be punished. This strategy leads to fear and inhibits an honest pursuit of improvement. Second, learning must be viewed as a process. A quality improvement plan that is successful in one setting may not be as favorable in another situation. Clinicians must be able to focus on their individual situations and adapt what others have implemented to their own practice. Third, the most important aspect of the quality improvement is the implementation step. It matters little if elegant studies of endoscopic complications or patient satisfaction are completed if the information is not used to improve the delivery of health care to every single patient. The delivery of medical care continues to evolve. Resources are becoming increasingly scarce and the progressive rise of health care expenditures suggests a need for control. In this zeal for cost constraint, quality must not be sacrificed. This new-found attention to quality must be extended to the level of the individual practitioner to ensure that individual patients' interests are protected and the best possible care is delivered regardless of the economic implications. As providers of health care, endoscopists need to take an active role in these efforts both in understanding and implementing the techniques of quality assessment into their practices. If physicians are not actively involved in data collection and measurement to improve the quality and value of their own work, someone else will undoubtedly assume this role.