质量改进能提高质量吗?

Mary Dixon-Woods, Graham P Martin
{"title":"质量改进能提高质量吗?","authors":"Mary Dixon-Woods,&nbsp;Graham P Martin","doi":"10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although quality improvement (QI) is frequently advocated as a way of addressing the problems with healthcare, evidence of its effectiveness has remained very mixed. The reasons for this are varied but the growing literature highlights particular challenges. Fidelity in the application of QI methods is often variable. QI work is often pursued through time-limited, small-scale projects, led by professionals who may lack the expertise, power or resources to instigate the changes required. There is insufficient attention to rigorous evaluation of improvement and to sharing the lessons of successes and failures. Too many QI interventions are seen as 'magic bullets' that will produce improvement in any situation, regardless of context. Too much improvement work is undertaken in isolation at a local level, failing to pool resources and develop collective solutions, and introducing new hazards in the process. This article considers these challenges and proposes four key ways in which QI might itself be improved.</p>","PeriodicalId":92635,"journal":{"name":"Future hospital journal","volume":"3 3","pages":"191-194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191","citationCount":"192","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does quality improvement improve quality?\",\"authors\":\"Mary Dixon-Woods,&nbsp;Graham P Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although quality improvement (QI) is frequently advocated as a way of addressing the problems with healthcare, evidence of its effectiveness has remained very mixed. The reasons for this are varied but the growing literature highlights particular challenges. Fidelity in the application of QI methods is often variable. QI work is often pursued through time-limited, small-scale projects, led by professionals who may lack the expertise, power or resources to instigate the changes required. There is insufficient attention to rigorous evaluation of improvement and to sharing the lessons of successes and failures. Too many QI interventions are seen as 'magic bullets' that will produce improvement in any situation, regardless of context. Too much improvement work is undertaken in isolation at a local level, failing to pool resources and develop collective solutions, and introducing new hazards in the process. This article considers these challenges and proposes four key ways in which QI might itself be improved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":92635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future hospital journal\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"191-194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191\",\"citationCount\":\"192\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future hospital journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future hospital journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 192

摘要

尽管质量改进(QI)经常被提倡作为解决医疗保健问题的一种方法,但其有效性的证据仍然非常复杂。造成这种情况的原因多种多样,但越来越多的文献强调了一些特殊的挑战。在QI方法的应用中,保真度经常是可变的。QI工作通常是通过有时间限制的小规模项目进行的,由专业人员领导,这些专业人员可能缺乏专业知识、权力或资源来推动所需的变化。对改进的严格评价和分享成功和失败的教训重视不够。太多的空气质量干预措施被视为在任何情况下都能产生改善的“灵丹妙药”,而不管背景如何。太多的改进工作是在地方一级孤立进行的,未能集中资源和制定集体解决办法,并在这一过程中引入了新的危险。本文考虑了这些挑战,并提出了可以改进QI本身的四种关键方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does quality improvement improve quality?

Although quality improvement (QI) is frequently advocated as a way of addressing the problems with healthcare, evidence of its effectiveness has remained very mixed. The reasons for this are varied but the growing literature highlights particular challenges. Fidelity in the application of QI methods is often variable. QI work is often pursued through time-limited, small-scale projects, led by professionals who may lack the expertise, power or resources to instigate the changes required. There is insufficient attention to rigorous evaluation of improvement and to sharing the lessons of successes and failures. Too many QI interventions are seen as 'magic bullets' that will produce improvement in any situation, regardless of context. Too much improvement work is undertaken in isolation at a local level, failing to pool resources and develop collective solutions, and introducing new hazards in the process. This article considers these challenges and proposes four key ways in which QI might itself be improved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Shifting the focus: A QI project to improve the management of delirium in patients with hip fracture. Raising concerns in the current NHS climate: a qualitative study exploring junior doctors' attitudes to training and teaching. Freedom to speak up - the role of freedom to speak up guardians and the National Guardian's Office in England. Development of a GMC aligned curriculum for internal medicine including a qualitative study of the acceptability of 'capabilities in practice' as a curriculum model. Flipped learning: Turning medical education upside down.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1