How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
- PMID: 24311732
- PMCID: PMC3914565
- DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzt085
How can we recognize continuous quality improvement?
Abstract
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: 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: /st> 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.
Keywords: consultants; continuous quality improvement; health care organization; quality improvement.
Figures
References
-
- Grol R. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. JAMA. 2001;286:2578–85. doi:10.1001/jama.286.20.2578. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Leach DC. Evaluation of competency: an ACGME perspective. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;79:487–9. doi:10.1097/00002060-200009000-00020. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Dyne PL, Strauss RW, Rinnert S. Systems-based practice: the sixth core competency. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:1270–7. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01587.x. - DOI - PubMed
-
- 2009. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Internal Medicine. http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/140.... February 2013 (1 , date last accessed)
-
- Hashim MJ, Prinsloo A, Mirza DM. Quality improvement tools for chronic disease care–more effective processes are less likely to be implemented in developing countries. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2013;26:14–9. doi:10.1108/09526861311288604. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous
