Quality and Safety Improvement in Radiation Oncology

2016 ◽  
pp. 165-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Dieterich ◽  
Eric Ford ◽  
Dan Pavord ◽  
Jing Zeng
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Safety Improvement

scholarly journals Hospital managers’ perspectives with implementing quality improvement measures and a new regulatory framework: a qualitative case study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e042847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sina Furnes Øyri ◽  
Geir Sverre Braut ◽  
Carl Macrae ◽  
Siri Wiig
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Adaptive Capacity ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Hospital Practice ◽  
Hospital Managers ◽  
Safety Improvement

A new regulatory framework to support local quality and safety efforts in hospitals was introduced to the Norwegian healthcare system in 2017. This study aimed to investigate hospital managers’ perspectives on implementation efforts and the resulting work practices, to understand if, and how, the new Quality Improvement Regulation influenced quality and safety improvement activities.DesignThis article reports one study level (the perspectives of hospital managers), as part of a multilevel case study. Data were collected by interviews and analysed according to qualitative content analysis.SettingThree hospitals retrieved from two regional health trusts in Norway.Participants20 hospital managers or quality advisers selected from different levels of hospital organisations.ResultsFour themes were identified in response to the study aim: (1) adaptive capacity in hospital management and practice, (2) implementation efforts and challenges with quality improvement, (3) systemic changes and (4) the potential to learn. Recent structural and cultural changes to, and development of, quality improvement systems in hospitals were discovered (3). Participants however, revealed no change in their practice solely due to the new Quality Improvement Regulation (2). Findings indicated that hospital managers are legally responsible for quality improvement implementation and participants described several benefits with the new Quality Improvement Regulation (2). This related to adaptation and flexibility to local context, and clinical autonomy as an inevitable element in hospital practice (1). Trust and a safe work environment were described as key factors to achieve adverse event reporting and support learning processes (4).ConclusionsThis study suggests that a lack of time, competence and/or motivation, impacted hospitals’ implementation of quality improvement efforts. Hospital managers’ autonomy and adaptive capacity to tailor quality improvement efforts were key for the new Quality Improvement Regulation to have any relevant impact on hospital practice and for it to influence quality and safety improvement activities.

A Robust Structure for Quality and Safety in a Large Academic Radiation Oncology Practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. e458-e459
Author(s):  
P.L. Nitsch ◽  
R. Natter ◽  
B.D. Frank ◽  
J.L. Johnson ◽  
M.T. Gillin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Oncology Practice

TU-C-BRE-11: 3D EPID-Based in Vivo Dosimetry: A Major Step Forward Towards Optimal Quality and Safety in Radiation Oncology Practice

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6Part26) ◽  
pp. 457-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Mijnheer ◽  
A Mans ◽  
I Olaciregui-Ruiz ◽  
R Rozendaal ◽  
H Spreeuw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
In Vivo Dosimetry ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
Optimal Quality

A Three-Decade Perspective on Anesthesia Safety

2006 ◽  
Vol 72 (11) ◽  
pp. 985-989 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Lanier
Keyword(s):  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Hospital Environment ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Road Map ◽  
Anesthesia Safety ◽  
Safety Improvement ◽  
Modern Medical Practice ◽  
Improve Patient ◽  
Current Report

Modern medical practice, and particularly that within the hospital environment, has been under intense scrutiny in an attempt to improve patient safety and optimize outcomes. Anesthesiology has been cited as among the most successful specialties effecting improvements. According to the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report, To Err is Human, “… anesthesiology has successfully reduced anesthesia mortality rates from two deaths per 10,000 anesthetics administered, to one death per 200,000 to 300,000 anesthetics administered.” The current report reviews representative highlights from 30 years of progress in improving anesthesiology safety and offers a speculative synthesis of the factors critical to past and future successes. The seven identified points include 1) the emergence of a champion and his allies, 2) initial efforts to identify and quantify broad-reaching problems, 3) research addressing intellectually “amusing” problems of relevance to practitioners, 4) reaching out to others with focused expertise in problem prevention and problem solving, 5) sharing the responsibility for quality and safety improvement with other specialties, 6) expanding buy-in and participation within the anesthesia community, and 7) preparing for the future. The factors provide not only an accounting of anesthesiologists’ successes, but also a road map for other groups and specialties desiring to emulate the anesthesiologists’ experience.

Leading improvement

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 413-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Øvretveit
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
Hard Copy ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Safety Improvement ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Improvement Method ◽  
Leader Role

PurposeTo provide research‐informed guidance to leaders of quality and safety improvement and evidence‐based materials for education programmes for leadersDesign/methodology/approachSearch of databases and hard copy literature since 1985 into managers' and leaders' role in quality and safety improvement. Classification into “eA”: Empirical research strong evidence, “eB”: Empirical research, weak evidence and, “eC”: Conceptual discussion, not based on systematic empirical research. Summary, and synthesis of the best available evidence for a guidance checklist for leaders.FindingsAlthough most literature emphasises the importance of committed leadership for successful quality and safety improvement, research evidence supporting this is scarce and often scientifically limited. The research shows evidence of the limitations and scope of leader actions for improving health care provision, the need to engage clinicians in this work and ways to do so, as well as the leadership role played by others apart from senior leaders. The ability of managers and other leaders skilfully to tailor Q&SI to the situation may be important but descriptions of how leaders do this and evidence supporting this proposition are lacking.Research limitations/implicationsMore research is needed about whether or how the leader role is different according to the stage of quality and safety development of the organisation, the type of organisation, the type of context, the level and type of leader and the type of improvement and improvement method.Practical implicationsImplications for leaders' actions are provided in a “best evidence guidance” checklist. This provides more tangible and research‐informed guidance than the inspirational literature or studies from single organisations.Originality/valueThis paper provides the first overview and synthesis of a wide range of studies which can be used as a basis for future research and materials for educational programmes. It provides the first detailed guidance for leaders about specific actions which research suggests they need to take to improve quality and safety.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document