Establishing a Culture of Patient Safety, Quality, and Service in Plastic Surgery: Integrating the Fractal Model
- PMID: 30480648
- DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000554
Establishing a Culture of Patient Safety, Quality, and Service in Plastic Surgery: Integrating the Fractal Model
Abstract
Problem: There are obstacles to effective nationwide implementation of a culture of patient safety. Plastic surgery faces unique challenges in this area because quality measures are not as well-established as in other fields. Plastic surgery may also require emphasis on patient-reported outcomes as a quality-of-life specialty with distinct concomitant analytical methods.
Approach: We devised a dynamic framework, based on our 3-year experience using a Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program-a formal quality improvement committee structure, literature review, and work from The Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality. This framework is specific and exportable to the field of plastic surgery. Monthly patient safety, quality, and service committee meetings encourage multilevel participation in a bottom-up fashion, while connecting with other departments and entities in Johns Hopkins Medicine. Our model focuses our work in the following four domains: (1) safety, (2) external measures, (3) patient experience, and (4) value. Our framework identifies and communicates clear goals, creates necessary infrastructure, identifies opportunities and needs, uses robust performance to develop and implement interventions, and includes analytics to track improvement plans and results.
Outcomes: We have gradually implemented this quality improvement structure into the Johns Hopkins Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery successfully since 2012. Outcomes have improved in externally reported measures of patient safety, quality, and service. We have demonstrated exemplary National Surgical Quality Improvement Program performance for morbidity, return to operating room, and readmission rates. Patient satisfaction surveys show improvement related to the high-level patient experience.
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors disclose no conflict of interest.
References
-
- Marjoua Y, Bozic KJ. Brief history of quality movement in US healthcare. Curr Rev Muscoskelet Med . 2012;5:265–273.
-
- Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q . 1966;44:166–206.
-
- Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA . 1988;260:1743–1748.
-
- Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson WG. The comparative assessment and improvement of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Arch Surg . 2002;137:20–27.
-
- Zhang JX, Song D, Bedford J, et al. What is the best way to measure surgical quality? Comparing the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program versus Traditional Morbidity and Mortality Conferences. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2016;137:1242–1250.