Literature DB >> 19580618

What are the most effective strategies for improving quality and safety of health care?

I Scott1.   

Abstract

There is now a plethora of different quality improvement strategies (QIS) for optimizing health care, some clinician/patient driven, others manager/policy-maker driven. Which of these are most effective remains unclear despite expressed concerns about potential for QIS-related patient harm and wasting of resources. The objective of this study was to review published literature assessing the relative effectiveness of different QIS. Data sources comprising PubMed Clinical Queries, Cochrane Library and its Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and HealthStar were searched for studies of QIS between January 1985 and February 2008 using search terms based on an a priori QIS classification suggested by experts. Systematic reviews of controlled trials were selected in determining effect sizes for specific QIS, which were compared as a narrative meta-review. Clinician/patient driven QIS were associated with stronger evidence of efficacy and larger effect sizes than manager/policy-maker driven QIS. The most effective strategies (>10% absolute increase in appropriate care or equivalent measure) included clinician-directed audit and feedback cycles, clinical decision support systems, specialty outreach programmes, chronic disease management programmes, continuing professional education based on interactive small-group case discussions, and patient-mediated clinician reminders. Pay-for-performance schemes directed to clinician groups and organizational process redesign were modestly effective. Other manager/policy-maker driven QIS including continuous quality improvement programmes, risk and safety management systems, public scorecards and performance reports, external accreditation, and clinical governance arrangements have not been adequately evaluated with regard to effectiveness. QIS are heterogeneous and methodological flaws in much of the evaluative literature limit validity and generalizability of results. Based on current best available evidence, clinician/patient driven QIS appear to be more effective than manager/policy-maker driven QIS although the latter have, in many instances, attracted insufficient robust evaluations to accurately determine their comparative effectiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19580618     DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2008.01798.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Med J        ISSN: 1444-0903            Impact factor:   2.048


  32 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of clinical appropriateness of blood transfusion.

Authors:  Franco Verlicchi
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.443

2.  A theory-informed systematic review of clinicians' genetic testing practices.

Authors:  Jean L Paul; Hanna Leslie; Alison H Trainer; Clara Gaff
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Harveian Oration 2018: Improving quality and safety in healthcare .

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.659

4.  Pay for performance for salaried health care providers: methodology, challenges, and pitfalls.

Authors:  John R Britton
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2014

5.  Red cell transfusion in orthopaedic surgery: a benchmark study performed combining data from different data sources.

Authors:  Franco Verlicchi; Fausto Desalvo; Gabriele Zanotti; Loretta Morotti; Ivana Tomasini
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 3.443

6.  Resident-initiated interventions to improve inpatient heart-failure management.

Authors:  James Oujiri; Abdul Hakeem; Quinn Pack; Robert Holland; David Meyers; Christopher Hildebrand; Alan Bridges; Mary A Roach; Bennett Vogelman
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 7.035

7.  Time Requirements of Paper-Based Clinical Workflows and After-Hours Documentation in a Multispecialty Academic Ophthalmology Practice.

Authors:  Sally L Baxter; Helena E Gali; Abigail E Huang; Marlene Millen; Robert El-Kareh; Eric Nudleman; Shira L Robbins; Christopher W D Heichel; Andrew S Camp; Bobby S Korn; Jeffrey E Lee; Don O Kikkawa; Christopher A Longhurst; Michael F Chiang; Michelle R Hribar; Lucila Ohno-Machado
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 8.  Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Cristian A Herrera; Simon Lewin; Elizabeth Paulsen; Agustín Ciapponi; Newton Opiyo; Tomas Pantoja; Gabriel Rada; Charles S Wiysonge; Gabriel Bastías; Sebastian Garcia Marti; Charles I Okwundu; Blanca Peñaloza; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-09-12

Review 9.  How the Smartphone Is Changing Allergy Diagnostics.

Authors:  Ana Margarida Pereira; Cristina Jácome; Rute Almeida; João Almeida Fonseca
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 4.806

10.  Effect of case-based training for medical residents on inpatient glycemia.

Authors:  Ronald Tamler; Dina E Green; Maria Skamagas; Tracy L Breen; Helen C Looker; Mark Babyatsky; Derek Leroith
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 19.112

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.