BACKGROUND: The demand for the highest-quality patient care coupled with pressure on funding has led to the increasing use of quality improvement (QI) methodologies from the manufacturing industry. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the application and effectiveness of these QI methodologies to the field of surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Health Business(™) Elite, the Health Management Information Consortium and PsycINFO(®) were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Empirical studies were included that implemented a described QI methodology to surgical care and analysed a named outcome statistically. RESULTS: Some 34 of 1595 articles identified met the inclusion criteria after consensus from two independent investigators. Nine studies described continuous quality improvement (CQI), five Six Sigma, five total quality management (TQM), five plan-do-study-act (PDSA) or plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles, five statistical process control (SPC) or statistical quality control (SQC), four Lean and one Lean Six Sigma; 20 of the studies were undertaken in the USA. The most common aims were to reduce complications or improve outcomes (11), to reduce infection (7), and to reduce theatre delays (7). There was one randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSION: QI methodologies from industry can have significant effects on improving surgical care, from reducing infection rates to increasing operating room efficiency. The evidence is generally of suboptimal quality, and rigorous randomized multicentre studies are needed to bring evidence-based management into the same league as evidence-based medicine.
BACKGROUND: The demand for the highest-quality patient care coupled with pressure on funding has led to the increasing use of quality improvement (QI) methodologies from the manufacturing industry. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the application and effectiveness of these QI methodologies to the field of surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Health Business(™) Elite, the Health Management Information Consortium and PsycINFO(®) were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Empirical studies were included that implemented a described QI methodology to surgical care and analysed a named outcome statistically. RESULTS: Some 34 of 1595 articles identified met the inclusion criteria after consensus from two independent investigators. Nine studies described continuous quality improvement (CQI), five Six Sigma, five total quality management (TQM), five plan-do-study-act (PDSA) or plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles, five statistical process control (SPC) or statistical quality control (SQC), four Lean and one Lean Six Sigma; 20 of the studies were undertaken in the USA. The most common aims were to reduce complications or improve outcomes (11), to reduce infection (7), and to reduce theatre delays (7). There was one randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSION: QI methodologies from industry can have significant effects on improving surgical care, from reducing infection rates to increasing operating room efficiency. The evidence is generally of suboptimal quality, and rigorous randomized multicentre studies are needed to bring evidence-based management into the same league as evidence-based medicine.
Authors: Marco von Strauss Und Torney; Salome Dell-Kuster; Henry Hoffmann; Urs von Holzen; Daniel Oertli; Rachel Rosenthal Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marco von Strauss Und Torney; Sohelia Aghlmandi; Jasmin Zeindler; Debora Nowakowski; Christian A Nebiker; Christoph Kettelhack; Rachel Rosenthal; Raoul A Droeser; Savas D Soysal; Henry Hoffmann; Robert Mechera Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.584