Literature DB >> 19294433

Money matters: exploiting the data from outcomes research for quality improvement initiatives.

Franco M Impellizzeri1, Mario Bizzini, Michael Leunig, Nicola A Maffiuletti, Anne F Mannion.   

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increase in studies that have sought to identify predictors of treatment outcome and to examine the efficacy of surgical and non-surgical treatments. In addition to the scientific advancement associated with these studies per se, the hospitals and clinics where the studies are conducted may gain indirect financial benefit from participating in such projects as a result of the prestige derived from corporate social responsibility, a reputational lever used to reward such institutions. It is known that there is a positive association between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. However, in addition to this, the research findings and the research staff can constitute resources from which the provider can reap a more direct benefit, by means of their contribution to quality control and improvement. Poor quality is costly. Patient satisfaction increases the chances that the patient will be a promoter of the provider to friends and colleagues. As such, involvement of the research staff in the improvement of the quality of care can ultimately result in economic revenue for the provider. The most advanced methodologies for continuous quality improvement (e.g., six-sigma) are data-driven and use statistical tools similar to those utilized in the traditional research setting. Given that these methods rely on the application of the scientific process to quality improvement, researchers have the adequate skills and mind-set to embrace them and thereby contribute effectively to the quality team. The aim of this article is to demonstrate by means of real-life examples how to utilize the findings of outcome studies for quality management in a manner similar to that used in the business community. It also aims to stimulate research groups to better understand that, by adopting a different perspective, their studies can be an additional resource for the healthcare provider. The change in perspective should stimulate researchers to go beyond the traditional studies examining predictors of treatment outcome and to see things instead in terms of the "bigger picture", i.e., the improvement of the process outcome, the quality of the service.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19294433      PMCID: PMC2899321          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0929-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  42 in total

Review 1.  Methods for incorporating patients' views in health care.

Authors:  Michel Wensing; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-04-19

Review 2.  Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care.

Authors:  S M Campbell; J Braspenning; A Hutchinson; M N Marshall
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-04-12

3.  Matching patient and physician expectations in spine surgery leads to improved outcomes.

Authors:  J L Stambough
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  A performance assessment framework for hospitals: the WHO regional office for Europe PATH project.

Authors:  J Veillard; F Champagne; N Klazinga; V Kazandjian; O A Arah; A-L Guisset
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2005-09-09       Impact factor: 2.038

5.  Can car manufacturing techniques reform health care?

Authors:  Michael McCarthy
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-01-28       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper?

Authors:  Alan Tennant; Philip G Conaghan
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2007-12-15

7.  Patients' expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C A Mancuso; E A Salvati; N A Johanson; M G Peterson; M E Charlson
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  Costs and prevention of patient defection.

Authors:  R N Clarke
Journal:  J Med Pract Manage       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug

9.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Six Sigma: not for the faint of heart.

Authors:  Anthony R Benedetto
Journal:  Radiol Manage       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr
View more
  1 in total

1.  [Surgery and management: natural partners].

Authors:  U Bork; M Koch; M W Büchler; J Weitz
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 0.955

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.