Viral Patel1, Geetika Sindhwani2, Monica Gupta3, Sweta Arora4, Arpita Mishra5, Jayesh Bhatt6, Manali Arora7, Anisha Gehani8. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Pramukhswami Medical College and Shree Krishna Hospital, Anand, Gujarat, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Pramukhswami Medical College and Shree Krishna Hospital, Anand, Gujarat, India. 3. Professor, Department of Pathology, Pramukhswami Medical College and Shree Krishna Hospital, Anand, Gujarat, India. 4. Manager QIG, Department of QIG, Pramukhswami Medical College and Shree Krishna Hospital, Anand, Gujarat, India. 5. Executive QIG, Department of QIG, Pramukhswami Medical College and Shree Krishna Hospital, Anand, Gujarat, India. 6. Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Pramukhswami Medical College and Shree Krishna Hospital, Anand, Gujarat, India. 7. Senior Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Pramukhswami Medical College and Shree Krishna Hospital, Anand, Gujarat, India. 8. Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Pramukhswami Medical College and Shree Krishna Hospital, Anand, Gujarat, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An organization's transformation from imple-mentation of small, distinct Quality Improvement (QI) efforts to complete incorporation of Quality Improvement Program (QIP) into its culture occurs through a process of churning the foundational elements over time. AIM: To develop a quality culture across the employees, identify measurable indicators and various tools to impart effective quality care and develop a learning culture for continuous quality improvement in the field of imaging services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To establish a QIP, the bare minimum requirement started with forming a quality committee. The committee identified the areas of improvement and ascertaining the core principle of Quality Management System (QMS) by having a Quality Manual, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), work-instructions, identification and monitoring of quality indicators and a training calendar. Appropriate tools like formatted daily registers, periodic check lists, run charts etc., were developed to collect the data followed by multiple PDSA cycles (Plan, Do, Study and Act) which helped identify the process bottlenecks, followed by implementing solutions and reanalysis. RESULTS: A total of 17 measurable key performance indicators were identified from the four major quality tasks namely Safety, Process Improvement, Professional Outcome and Satisfaction, to assess the performance measures and targets of QIP. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic services should evaluate how to choose the most appropriate method and develop a comprehensive QIP to meet the needs of the staff and the end users, thus, creating a working environment, where people constitutes the intrinsic value in attaining the ultimate quality and safety.
INTRODUCTION: An organization's transformation from imple-mentation of small, distinct Quality Improvement (QI) efforts to complete incorporation of Quality Improvement Program (QIP) into its culture occurs through a process of churning the foundational elements over time. AIM: To develop a quality culture across the employees, identify measurable indicators and various tools to impart effective quality care and develop a learning culture for continuous quality improvement in the field of imaging services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To establish a QIP, the bare minimum requirement started with forming a quality committee. The committee identified the areas of improvement and ascertaining the core principle of Quality Management System (QMS) by having a Quality Manual, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), work-instructions, identification and monitoring of quality indicators and a training calendar. Appropriate tools like formatted daily registers, periodic check lists, run charts etc., were developed to collect the data followed by multiple PDSA cycles (Plan, Do, Study and Act) which helped identify the process bottlenecks, followed by implementing solutions and reanalysis. RESULTS: A total of 17 measurable key performance indicators were identified from the four major quality tasks namely Safety, Process Improvement, Professional Outcome and Satisfaction, to assess the performance measures and targets of QIP. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic services should evaluate how to choose the most appropriate method and develop a comprehensive QIP to meet the needs of the staff and the end users, thus, creating a working environment, where people constitutes the intrinsic value in attaining the ultimate quality and safety.
Authors: Jonathan B Kruskal; Ronald Eisenberg; Jacob Sosna; Chun Sham Yam; Joshua D Kruskal; Phillip M Boiselle Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; Karl N Krecke; Rafael Miranda; Catherine C Roberts; Charles Denham Journal: Radiographics Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Francis R Verdun; François Bochud; François Gundinchet; Abbas Aroua; Pierre Schnyder; Reto Meuli Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Bettina Siewert; Olga R Brook; Misti M Mullins; Ronald L Eisenberg; Jonathan B Kruskal Journal: Radiographics Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Biswita C Mozumdar; Douglas Neal Hornsby; Adheet S Gogate; Lisa A Intriere; Richard Hanson; Karen McGreal; Pauline Kelly; Pablo Ros Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kenneth A Fleming; Susan Horton; Michael L Wilson; Rifat Atun; Kristen DeStigter; John Flanigan; Shahin Sayed; Pierrick Adam; Bertha Aguilar; Savvas Andronikou; Catharina Boehme; William Cherniak; Annie Ny Cheung; Bernice Dahn; Lluis Donoso-Bach; Tania Douglas; Patricia Garcia; Sarwat Hussain; Hari S Iyer; Mikashmi Kohli; Alain B Labrique; Lai-Meng Looi; John G Meara; John Nkengasong; Madhukar Pai; Kara-Lee Pool; Kaushik Ramaiya; Lee Schroeder; Devanshi Shah; Richard Sullivan; Bien-Soo Tan; Kamini Walia Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Dominic J DiCostanzo; Lalith K Kumaraswamy; Jillian Shuman; Daniel C Pavord; Yanle Hu; David W Jordan; Christopher Waite-Jones; Annie Hsu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 2.243