Using quality function deployment to capture the voice of the customer and translate it into the voice of the provider.

BACKGROUND: Health care has a number of historical barriers to capturing the voice of the customer and to incorporating customer wants into health care services, whether the customer is a patient, an insurer, or a community. Quality function deployment (QFD) is a set of tools and practices that can help overcome these barriers to form a process for the planning and design or redesign of products and services. The goal of the project was to increase referral volume and to improve a rehabilitation hospital's capacity to provide comprehensive medical and/or legal evaluations for people with complex and catastrophic injuries or illnesses. HIGH-LEVEL VIEW OF QFD AS A PROCESS: The steps in QFD are as follows: capture of the voice of the customer, quality deployment, functions deployment, failure mode deployment, new process deployment, and task deployment. The output of each step becomes the input to a matrix tool or table of the next step of the process. CASE STUDY EXAMPLE: In 3 1/2 months a nine-person project team at Continental Rehabilitation Hospital (San Diego) used QFD tools to capture the voice of the customer, use these data as the basis for a questionnaire on important qualities of service from the customer's perspective, obtain competitive data on how the organization was perceived to be meeting the demanded qualities, identify measurable dimensions and targets of these qualities, and incorporate the functions and tasks into the delivery of service which are necessary to meet the demanded qualities. DISCUSSION: The future of providing health care services will belong to organizations that can adapt to a rapidly changing environment and to demands for new products and services that are produced and delivered in new ways.     

Does a healthy health care workplace produce higher-quality care?

BACKGROUND: The multiagency Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC) coordinates activities and plans for quality measurement and improvement across all the U.S. federal agencies involved in health care. One of its working groups focuses on the health care workforce and ways to improve the quality of care that it provides. In October 1999 four government agencies, under the aegis of the QuIC, convened a conference to examine how health care workplace quality influences the quality of care. A healthy workplace is one in which workers will be able to deliver higher-quality care and in which worker health and patients' high-quality care are mutually supportive. In October 2000 a follow-up conference was held to focus on a specific aspect of health care quality-patient safety. WHAT WE STILL NEED TO KNOW: Although enough is known to justify some initiatives to improve the quality of the health care workplace, participants in both meetings agreed that the evidence to prove these associations is weak and that there has been too little research to evaluate the impact of interventions intended to improve quality through improvements in the health care workplace. New evidence-based information is needed to test the theory of the nature of the relationship between working conditions and care quality. CONCLUSION: The tradition of evidence-based decision making needs to be applied to health care management as it has in medicine and nursing, to show how staffing, environment, organization, and culture can each can affect the quality of care.     

The Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Study (CAHPS) survey of children's health care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the experience of children and families with pediatric care. Asking parents about their experiences and the treatment of their children in health care plans can yield important information about selected aspects of medical care quality. Such data can be used to motivate, focus, and evaluate quality improvement efforts. METHODS: Development of the Child Core Survey followed the survey development principles of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Study (CAHPS) project, starting with assembly of existing instruments, consultation with experts, focus groups, and cognitive testing. A field test of the survey was conducted by mail among members enrolled in 1 of 25 plans originally identified as providing health care services to the public employees of the state of Washington (response rate, 52%). RESULTS: The 3,083 respondents rated personal doctors most highly, with overall care and specialty care rated nearly as well, and plan administration rated lowest. Parent-clinician and child-clinician communication, as well as spending sufficient time with the child were the strongest correlates of assessments of overall care and of personal doctors. Plans differed significantly in their performance along all the dimensions of child health care assessed in the survey except for aspects of access ("getting the care you need"). IMPLICATIONS: The Child Core Survey from the CAHPS provides a readily accessible method to assess the interpersonal care of children. Such data could be used to make plans accountable to the needs of children, to focus specific improvement initiatives, or both.     

The forgotten component of the quality triad: can we still learn something from "structure"?

BACKGROUND: Quality assessment was founded on structural measures, such as accreditation status of facilities, credentialing of providers, and type of provider. Recent efforts in measures development have focused on processes and outcomes because research has suggested that structural measures are not strong markers of the quality of care at the health plan or provider levels. Nevertheless, the literature on the quality of health care contains a number of examples illustrating the potential application of structural measures to the assessment of quality. The continued development of measures of structure-which would at least measure aspects of the physical environment, working conditions, organizational culture, and provider satisfaction--may be helpful because generalizing from studies of process and outcome requires specification of the conditions under which these linkages are found. A ROAD MAP FOR MEASURES DEVELOPMENT: The Leapfrog Group of large purchasers has promoted the application of three patient safety "leaps" that are, in essence, structural measures: the use of computerized physician order entry, the selective referral of patients to high-volume providers for certain procedures, and the availability of board-certified critical care specialists in intensive care units. Structural measures, like process and outcomes measures, face the same challenges of standardization, reliability, validity, and portability. Field testing of potential measures will be required to examine the feasibility and added value of these measures in real-world settings. CONCLUSION: Research to date suggests that a new cadre of structural measures of health care quality, which have largely been overlooked in the recent measures development boom, have the potential to fill in important gaps in our ability to assess quality.     

Comparison of an enhanced versus a written feedback model on the management of Medicare inpatients with venous thrombosis

BACKGROUND: A multistate randomized study conducted under the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA's) Health Care Quality Improvement Program (HCQIP) offered the opportunity to compare the effect of a written feedback intervention (WFI) with that of an enhanced feedback intervention (EFI) on improving the anticoagulant management of Medicare beneficiaries who present to the hospital with venous thromboembolic disease. METHODS: Twenty-nine hospitals in five states were randomly assigned to receive written hospital-specific feedback (WFI) of feedback enhanced by the participation of a trained physician, quality improvement tools, and an Anticoagulant Management of Venous Thrombosis (AMVT) project liaison (EFI). Differences in the performance of five quality indicators between baseline and remeasurement were assessed. Quality managers were interviewed to determine perceptions of project implementation. RESULTS: No significant differences in the change from baseline to remeasurement were found between the two intervention groups. Significant improvement in one indicator and significant decline in two indicators were found for one or both groups. Yet 59% of all quality managers perceived the AMVT project as being successful to very successful, and more EFI quality managers perceived success than did WFI managers (71% versus 40%). In the majority of EFI hospitals, physician liaisons played an important role in project implementation. CONCLUSION: Study results indicated that the addition of a physician liaison, quality improvement tools, and a project liaison did not provide incremental value to hospital-specific feedback for improving quality of care. Future studies with larger sample sizes, lengthier follow-up periods, and interventions that include more of the elements shown to affect practice behavior change are needed to identify an optimal feedback model for use by external quality management organizations.     

The 1999 ICSI/IHI colloquium on clinical quality improvement--"quality: settling the frontier"

BACKGROUND: A Colloquium on Clinical Quality Improvement, "Quality: Setting the Frontier," held in May 1999, covered methods and programs in clinical quality improvement. Leadership and organizational behavior were the main themes of the breakout sessions; specific topics included implementing guidelines, applying continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods in preventive services and primary care, and using systems thinking to improve clinical outcomes. Three keynote addresses were presented. LEADERSHIP FOR QUALITY: James L. Reinertsen, MD (CareGroup, Boston), characterized the financial challenges faced by many health care organizations as a "clarion call" for leadership on quality. "The leadership imperative is to establish an environment in which quality can thrive, despite unprecedented, severe economic pressures on our health systems." LINKING GROUP AND ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES: How do we make improvement more effective? G. Ross Baker, PhD (University of Toronto), reviewed what organizational literature says about making teams more effective, understanding the organizational context to enable improvement work, and augmenting existing methods for creating sustainable improvement. For example, he noted the increasing interest among may organizations in rapid-cycle improvement but cautioned that such efforts may work best where problems can be addressed by existing clinical teams (not cross-functional work groups) and where there are available solutions that have worked in other settings. IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT FOR QUALITY: Mark Chassin, MD (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York), stated that critical tasks for improving quality include increasing public awareness, engaging clinicians in improvement, increasing the investment in producing measures and improvement tools, and reinventing health care delivery, clinical education and training, and QI.     

Assessing "best evidence": issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, quality and value of health services, and science-based decision making are becoming mainstays of the health care sector. As part of the evidence-based movement, systematic reviews of the literature on clinical questions are becoming increasingly common. Part of the structured approach to evaluating the literature involves assessing the quality of individual studies included in systematic reviews. REVIEW QUESTIONS: To clarify issues in this area, in 1998 the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research commissioned a small project to determine how its 12 Evidence-based Practice Centers were carrying out this part of their systematic reviews (called evidence reports). The number of potential checklists, scales, and similar tools for grading the methodology or the clinical relevance of individual reports is large; the reliability, the validity, the feasibility, and the utility of these tools are either unmeasured or quite variable. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous methodologic questions await definitive research and answers, but in the meantime teams developing authoritative systematic reviews can take certain steps to ensure that their approaches to grading the quality of articles meet applicable scientific standards. Clinicians, program administrators, and health policymakers can then be confident in the overall strength of the evidence and study conclusions.     

The Patient Care Notebook: quality improvement on a rehabilitation unit

BACKGROUND: Shortened lengths of stay in acute and rehabilitation hospitals, continuing financial pressures on all postacute care services, and increasing out-of-pocket health care costs for patients and families challenge rehabilitation hospitals' patient education and discharge planning processes. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital (Boston) introduced a patient care notebook in a 15-bed satellite unit and pilot tested its contribution to the patient education and discharge planning process. DEVELOPING THE NOTEBOOK: The three-ring binder notebook included sections on medical appointments and phone numbers, understanding illness and medical care, coping with illness, physical activities, recommendations for the home, and community resources, with both standard and patient-specific information. RESULTS: Most of the patients and caregivers who received the notebooks found them to be helpful, and most staff indicated that the notebook improved the teaching process. Telephone calls to the unit after home discharges decreased form 28 calls for 11 discharges to 6 calls for 21 discharges after the notebook began to be used regularly. DISCUSSION: Staff felt that the process of using the notebook helped focus attention on teaching during the entire course of a patient's hospitalization rather than just a day or two before discharge. The patient care notebook process is being introduced to the entire hospital and to all patients, regardless of discharge location and the patient's literacy or proficiency with English. CONCLUSION: In using the notebook, the QI team, and the entire unit staff, learned about the complexities of QI, patient education, and discharge planning. The notebook process was implemented throughout the hospital a little more than a year after the completion of the pilot project.     

基于广义回归神经网络的工程公司风险评估

针对工程公司日常管理中由于缺乏风险评估工具,经常造成公司资源的浪费,甚至造成大量损失的现状,结合其行业特点,构建风险评价体系模型。在模型的基础上,提出一种基于广义回归神经网络(GRNN)的工程公司风险评估方法,通过矩阵实验室中的神经网络工具对其进行仿真计算,以某安防系统工程公司的实例证明了其有效性。该研究为同类型公司的风险评估提供了一种有效的管理工具。     

Microsystems in health care: Part 1. Learning from high-performing front-line clinical units

BACKGROUND: Clinical microsystems are the small, functional, front-line units that provide most health care to most people. They are the essential building blocks of larger organizations and of the health system. They are the place where patients and providers meet. The quality and value of care produced by a large health system can be no better than the services generated by the small systems of which it is composed. METHODS: A wide net was cast to identify and study a sampling of the best-quality, best-value small clinical units in North America. Twenty microsystems, representing different component parts of the health system, were examined from December 2000 through June 2001, using qualitative methods supplemented by medical record and finance reviews. RESULTS: The study of the 20 high-performing sites generated many best practice ideas (processes and methods) that microsystems use to accomplish their goals. Nine success characteristics were related to high performance: leadership, culture, macro-organizational support of microsystems, patient focus, staff focus, interdependence of care team, information and information technology, process improvement, and performance patterns. These success factors were interrelated and together contributed to the microsystem's ability to provide superior, cost-effective care and at the same time create a positive and attractive working environment. CONCLUSIONS: A seamless, patient-centered, high-quality, safe, and efficient health system cannot be realized without the transformation of the essential building blocks that combine to form the care continuum.     

Quality Improvement Partnerships with Industry Using Student Teams

The 1993 Quality Challenge is a cooperative partnership between Milliken and Company, the National Science Foundation and three North Carolina Universities. The project goal was to activate a multidisciplinary team of students, faculty, and industry representatives in a real-world quality improvement project. The 1993 project was an expanded follow-up to the 1992 University Challenge Project, also sponsored by Milliken. Based upon past experience, project coordinators broke the 1993 project into three components: Preparation, Identification, and Action. Preparation included a preliminary course held in the Spring to teach students fundamental Total Quality Management tools, team building skills and communication skills needed in industry. A team of students was selected from the course to participate in the summer Identification and Action phases of the project. The Identification phase included introduction to project goals, team process training, specialized team formation and project focus. The Action phase of the project included process capability studies, shade variation studies, root cause trials and a statistical design of experiment on shade variables. The project resulted in many recommendations to improve the process and reduce shade variation. The overall project methodology and approach can be applied to industries other than textile manufacturing. Educational benefits for all participants included: team building and teamwork experience, enhancement of effective communication skills, experience in design of experiments, engineering design and practice, greater self confidence, and industrial experience with real-world quality improvement opportunities.     

Using root cause analysis to address patient satisfaction and other improvement opportunities

BACKGROUND: Despite the considerable attention that health care organizations are devoting to the measurement of patient satisfaction, there is often confusion about how to systematically use these data to improve an organization's performance. A model to use in applying traditional quality improvement methods and tools to patient satisfaction problems includes five primary steps: (1) identifying opportunities, (2) prioritizing opportunities, (3) conducting root cause analysis, (4) designing and testing potential solutions, and (5) implementing the proposed solution. PATIENT SATISFACTION SURVEYS: A satisfaction survey serves best as a high-level screening device, not as a tool to provide highly detailed information about the root causes of patient dissatisfaction. The primary purpose of the survey in the model is to identify improvement opportunities and areas of significant improvement or deterioration. Secondary tools such as brief patient interviews or focus groups may better serve to probe intensively into the problem areas identified by the survey. These tools allow for a direct dialog with the patient to uncover root causes of dissatisfaction and establish potential solutions. DISCUSSION: Although the primary focus of this model has been patient satisfaction issues, the basic steps could easily be applied to virtually any improvement opportunity. Improvement teams should commit to a schedule of 90-minute weekly meetings for 7 weeks. The model, a simple translation of traditional improvement methods and tools to address the unique issues facing patient satisfaction improvement teams, can save improvement teams considerable time, resources, and frustration as they design and launch initiatives to improve patient satisfaction.     

Integration and focus from the perspective of social impact assessment: a response to Morrison-Saunders et al.

The paper by Morrison-Saunders et al. [Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Gunn J, Bond A, Retief F. 2014. Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 32(1):2–8] was interesting reading, but ultimately unconvincing in that it did not adequately prove its point. There were too many assertions. The issues of integration and focus are more complex than they suggest. A more considered analysis would have led to a different outcome. Coming from a social impact assessment perspective, I consider Morrison-Saunders et al. to be guilty of the same thing they complain about, i.e. silo-based expertise, given their lack of connection to papers and discussions outside of their fields of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment.     

The outlook of building information modeling for sustainable development

As human needs evolve, information technologies and natural environments require a wider perspective of sustainable development, especially when examining the built environment that impacts the central of social-ecological systems. The objectives of the paper are (a) to review the status and development of building information modeling (BIM) in regards to the sustainable development in the built environment, and (b) to develop a future outlook framework that promotes BIM in sustainable development. Seven areas of sustainability were classified to analyze forty-four BIM guidelines and standards. This review examines the use of BIM in sustainable development, focusing primarily on certain areas of sustainability, such as project development, design, and construction. The developed framework describes the need for collaboration with the multiple disciplines for the future adoption and use of BIM for the sustainable development. It also considers the integration between “BIM and green assessment criteria”; and “BIM and renewable energy” to address the shortcomings of the standards and guidelines.     

Improving the care of patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a multihospital collaborative QI project

BACKGROUND: Performance of several processes of care was measured in eight acute care hospitals in Connecticut which provided inpatient treatment to 713 elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). BASELINE DATA ABSTRACTION AND FEEDBACK: Chart review feedback was provided, and the hospitals were requested to design their own quality improvement (QI) interventions, after which reexamination of process of care performance was conducted. HOSPITAL QI INTERVENTIONS: Six of the eight hospitals had submitted QI plans. The quality indicators dealing with timeliness of antibiotic delivery were specifically addressed by five hospitals. However, each hospital also picked one or two other processes of care for intervention. RESULTS: The mean time to antibiotic administration decreased from 5.5 hours (+/- 0.2) to 4.7 hours (+/- 0.3; p < 0.0001), and the percentage of patients who received antibiotics within four hours increased from 41.5% to 61.8% (p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: This project called for obtaining buy-in from both the clinician and administrative representatives of each hospital early in the process. In this way, the targeted processes of care were likely to have relevance for each of the participating hospitals. Education of practicing physicians and other health professionals, as the method chosen by each hospital to address delays in antibiotic administration, appears to have been successful in this project as part of a multifaceted intervention. The project also helped establish a collegial environment that has served as the basis for more ambitious pneumonia QI projects. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: Widespread improvements in process of care performance can result from hospitals' participation in Quality Improvement Organization collaboration.     

Use of consumer ratings for quality improvement in behavioral health insurance plans

BACKGROUND: The Consumer Assessment of Behavioral Healthcare Services (CABHS) survey collects consumers' reports about their health care plans and treatment. The use of the CABHS to identify opportunities for improvement, with specific attention to how organizations have used the survey information for quality improvement, is described. METHODS: In 1998 and 1999, data were collected from five groups of adult patients in commercial health plans and five groups of adult patients in public assistance health plans with services received through four organizations (one of three managed behavioral health care organizations or a health system). Patients who received behavioral health care services during the previous year were mailed the CABHS survey. Non-respondents were contacted by telephone to complete the survey. RESULTS: Response rates ranged from 49% to 65% for commercial patient groups and from 36% to 51% for public assistance patients. Promptly getting treatment from clinicians and aspects of care most influenced by health plan policies and operations, such as access to treatment and plan administrative services, received the least positive responses, whereas questions about communication received the most positive responses. In addition, questions about access- and plan-related aspects of quality showed the most interplan variability. Three of the organizations in this study focused quality improvement efforts on access to treatment. DISCUSSION: Surveys such as the CABHS can identify aspects of the plan and treatment that are improvement priorities. Use of these data is likely to extend beyond the behavioral health plan to consumers, purchasers, regulators, and policymakers, particularly because the National Committee for Quality Assurance is encouraging behavioral health plans to use a similar survey for accreditation purposes.     

Taking the national guideline for care of acute myocardial infarction to the bedside: developing the guideline applied in practice (GAP) initiative in Southeast Michigan.

BACKGROUND: The Guideline Applied in Practice (GAP) program was developed in 2000 to improve the quality of care by improving adherence to clinical practice guidelines. For the first GAP project, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) partnered with the Southeast Michigan Quality Forum Cardiovascular Subgroup and the Michigan Peer Review Organization (MPRO) to develop interventions that might facilitate the use of the ACC/AHA Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) guideline in the practice setting. Ten Michigan hospitals participated in implementing the project, which began in March 2000. DESIGNING THE PROJECT: The project developed a multifaceted intervention aimed at key players in the care delivery triangle: the physician, nurse, and patient. Intervention components included a project kick-off presentation and dinner, creation and implementation of a customized tool kit, identification and assignment of local nurse and physician opinion leaders, grand rounds site visits, and measurement before and after the intervention. IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT: The GAP project experience suggests that hospitals are enthusiastic about partnering with ACC to improve quality of care; partners can work together to develop a program for guideline implementation; rapid-cycle implementation is possible with the GAP model; guidelines and quality indicators for AMI are well accepted; and hospitals can adapt the national guideline for care into usable tools focused on physicians, nurses, and patients. DISCUSSION: Important structure and process changes--both of which are required for successful QI efforts--have been demonstrated in this project. Ultimately, the failure or success of this initiative will depend on an indication that the demonstrated improvement in the quality indicators is sustained over time.     

The art and science of chart review

BACKGROUND: Explicit chart review was an integral part of an ongoing national cooperative project, "Using Achievable Benchmarks of Care to Improve Quality of Care for Outpatients with Depression," conducted by a large managed care organization (MCO) and an academic medical center. Many investigators overlook the complexities involved in obtaining high-quality data. Given a scarcity of advice in the quality improvement (QI) literature on how to conduct chart review, the process of chart review was examined and specific techniques for improving data quality were proposed. METHODS: The abstraction tool was developed and tested in a prepilot phase; perhaps the greatest problem detected was abstractor assumption and interpretation. The need for a clear distinction between symptoms of depression or anxiety and physician diagnosis of major depression or anxiety disorder also became apparent. In designing the variables for the chart review module, four key aspects were considered: classification, format, definition, and presentation. For example, issues in format include use of free-text versus numeric variables, categoric variables, and medication variables (which can be especially challenging for abstraction projects). Quantitative measures of reliability and validity were used to improve and maintain the quality of chart review data. Measuring reliability and validity offers assistance with development of the chart review tool, continuous maintenance of data quality throughout the production phase of chart review, and final documentation of data quality. For projects that require ongoing abstraction of large numbers of clinical records, data quality may be monitored with control charts and the principles of statistical process control. RESULTS: The chart review module, which contained 140 variables, was built using MedQuest software, a suite of tools designed for customized data collection. The overall interrater reliability increased from 80% in the prepilot phase to greater than 96% in the final phase (which included three abstractors and 465 unique charts). The mean time per chart was calculated for each abstractor, and the maximum value was 13.7 +/- 13 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: In general, chart review is more difficult than it appears on the surface. It is also project specific, making a "cookbook" approach difficult. Many factors, such as imprecisely worded research questions, vague specification of variables, poorly designed abstraction tools, inappropriate interpretation by abstractors, and poor or missing recording of data in the chart, may compromise data quality.     

Tools, methods, and strategies. Do innovative models of health care delivery improve quality of care for selected vulnerable populations? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A criticism of conventional office or clinic-based models of care is that they focus on patients' urgent problems and do not provide the comprehensive assessments, education, and psychosocial support that vulnerable patients also need. Innovative models have emerged to address these needs. A systematic review of prospective studies involving searches of computerized databases, reviews of reference lists, and contacts with authors, was conducted to determine whether multidisciplinary teams, outreach or home care, and case management improve the quality of the care in two vulnerable populations-the terminally ill and the mentally ill. RESULTS: Literature searches identified 730 citations. 52 original articles met screening standards, and 24 studies fulfilled all criteria. Patient and caregiver satisfaction was consistently higher with innovative models. In no study was satisfaction lower. Functional, clinical, or psychological improvements were not consistently demonstrated. For mentally ill patients, multidisciplinary outreach strategies were effective in reducing inpatient hospitalizations. Costs were inadequately assessed in the studies to draw a summary conclusion. DISCUSSION: Like other interventions, health care delivery models can be assessed from an evidence-based perspective. More needs to be learned about the costs and health improvements of innovative models before we can determine whether the increased patient and caregiver satisfaction found justifies widespread use of these models. Development of a uniform set of quality outcome measures and encouragement to evaluate efforts and disseminate results will help accomplish this goal.