BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives commonly originate 'top-down' from senior leadership, as staff engagement is often sporadic. We describe our experience with a technology-enabled open innovation contest to encourage participation from multiple stakeholders in a Department of Surgery (DoS) to solicit ideas for QI. We aimed to stimulate engagement and to assist DoS leadership in prioritizing QI initiatives. METHODS: Observational study of a process improvement. The process had five phases: anonymous online submission of ideas by frontline staff; anonymous online crowd-voting to rank ideas on a scale whether the DoS should implement each idea (1 = No, 3 = Maybe, 5 = Yes); ideas with scores ≥ 95th percentile were invited to submit implementation plans; plans were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary panel to select a winning idea; an award ceremony celebrated the completion of the contest. RESULTS: 152 ideas were submitted from 95 staff (n = 850, 11.2%). All Divisions (n = 12) and all staff roles (n = 12) submitted ideas. The greatest number of ideas were submitted by faculty (27.6%), patient service coordinators (18.4%), and residents (17.8%). The most common QI category was access to care (20%). 195 staff (22.9%) cast 3559 votes. The mean score was 3.5 ± 0.5. 10 Ideas were objectively invited to submit implementation plans. One idea was awarded a grand prize of funding, project management, and leadership buy-in. CONCLUSION: A web-enabled open innovation contest was successful in engaging faculty, residents, and other critical role groups in QI. It also enabled the leadership to re-affirm a positive culture of inclusivity, maintain an open-door policy, and also democratically vet and prioritize solutions for quality improvement.
BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives commonly originate 'top-down' from senior leadership, as staff engagement is often sporadic. We describe our experience with a technology-enabled open innovation contest to encourage participation from multiple stakeholders in a Department of Surgery (DoS) to solicit ideas for QI. We aimed to stimulate engagement and to assist DoS leadership in prioritizing QI initiatives. METHODS: Observational study of a process improvement. The process had five phases: anonymous online submission of ideas by frontline staff; anonymous online crowd-voting to rank ideas on a scale whether the DoS should implement each idea (1 = No, 3 = Maybe, 5 = Yes); ideas with scores ≥ 95th percentile were invited to submit implementation plans; plans were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary panel to select a winning idea; an award ceremony celebrated the completion of the contest. RESULTS: 152 ideas were submitted from 95 staff (n = 850, 11.2%). All Divisions (n = 12) and all staff roles (n = 12) submitted ideas. The greatest number of ideas were submitted by faculty (27.6%), patient service coordinators (18.4%), and residents (17.8%). The most common QI category was access to care (20%). 195 staff (22.9%) cast 3559 votes. The mean score was 3.5 ± 0.5. 10 Ideas were objectively invited to submit implementation plans. One idea was awarded a grand prize of funding, project management, and leadership buy-in. CONCLUSION: A web-enabled open innovation contest was successful in engaging faculty, residents, and other critical role groups in QI. It also enabled the leadership to re-affirm a positive culture of inclusivity, maintain an open-door policy, and also democratically vet and prioritize solutions for quality improvement.
Authors: S F Khuri; J Daley; W Henderson; K Hur; J Demakis; J B Aust; V Chong; P J Fabri; J O Gibbs; F Grover; K Hammermeister; G Irvin; G McDonald; E Passaro; L Phillips; F Scamman; J Spencer; J F Stremple Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jonah J Stulberg; Conor P Delaney; Duncan V Neuhauser; David C Aron; Pingfu Fu; Siran M Koroukian Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nicole Edgar Fitzpatrick; John Maier; Laurel Yasko; David Mathias; Kacy Qua; Erika Wagner; Elizabeth Miller; Steven E Reis Journal: Acad Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Matthew A Bartek; Anjali R Truitt; Sierra Widmer-Rodriguez; Jordan Tuia; Zoya A Bauer; Bryan A Comstock; Todd C Edwards; Sarah O Lawrence; Sarah E Monsell; Donald L Patrick; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Danielle C Lavallee Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Melissa E Shumacher; Sharon Markman; Kayla Scales; Laura Fritsche; Kimisha Cassidy; Jane L Holl; Craig A Umscheid Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2022-05-08 Impact factor: 2.899