High Reliability: Truly Achieving Healthcare Quality and Safety

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 35-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Scott Blouin
2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 99-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Braithwaite ◽  
Natalie Taylor ◽  
Robyn Clay-Williams ◽  
Hsuen P Ting ◽  
Gaston Arnolda

Abstract This final article in our 12-part series articulating a suite of quality improvement studies completes our report on the Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA) program of work. Here, we bring the Supplement’s key findings and contributions together, tying up loose ends. Traversing the DUQuA articles, we first argued the case for the research, conducted so that an in-depth analysis of one country’s health system, completed 5 years after the landmark Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE), was available. We now provide a digest of the learning from each article. Essentially, we have contributed an understanding of quality and safety activities in 32 of the largest acute settings in Australia, developed a series of scales and tools for use within Australia, modifiable for other purposes elsewhere, and provided a platform for future studies of this kind. Our main message is, despite the value of publishing an intense study of quality activities in 32 hospitals in one country, there is no gold standard, one-size-fits-all methodology or guarantee of success in quality improvement activities, whether the initiatives are conducted at departmental, organization-wide or whole-of-systems levels. Notwithstanding this, armed with the tools, scales and lessons from DUQuA, we hope we have provided many more options and opportunities for others going about strengthening their quality improvement activities, but we do not claim to have solved all problems or provided a definitive approach. In our view, quality improvement initiatives are perennially challenging, and progress hard-won. Effective measurement, evaluating progress over time, selecting a useful suite of quality methods and having the persistence to climb the improvement gradient over time, using all the expertise and tools available, is at the core of the work of quality improvement and will continue to be so.


2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances C Cunningham ◽  
Geetha Ranmuthugala ◽  
Jennifer Plumb ◽  
Andrew Georgiou ◽  
Johanna I Westbrook ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Emily S. Patterson ◽  
Sharon Schweikhart ◽  
Shilo Anders ◽  
Suzanne Brungs ◽  
Marta L. Render

Quality improvement collaboratives (QIC) are widely used for seeking improvements in healthcare quality and safety. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of QICs is variable. In order to support research that identifies critical elements in running a successful collaborative, we fill a conceptual gap by moving towards a functional model of QICs. Specifically, we define how QICs are distinct from traditional quality improvement teams, conceptualize how primary and secondary functions are accomplished in a means-ends framework, and illustrate how the functions are dynamically accomplished in a series of meetings by nested teams within a collaborative. Finally, we discuss distinctions among QICs.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Pronovost ◽  
C. Michael Armstrong ◽  
Renee Demski ◽  
Ronald R. Peterson ◽  
Paul B. Rothman

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer six principles that health system leaders can apply to establish a governance and management system for the quality of care and patient safety. Design/methodology/approach Leaders of a large academic health system set a goal of high reliability and formed a quality board committee in 2011 to oversee quality and patient safety everywhere care was delivered. Leaders of the health system and every entity, including inpatient hospitals, home care companies, and ambulatory services staff the committee. The committee works with the management for each entity to set and achieve quality goals. Through this work, the six principles emerged to address management structures and processes. Findings The principles are: ensure there is oversight for quality everywhere care is delivered under the health system; create a framework to organize and report the work; identify care areas where quality is ambiguous or underdeveloped (i.e. islands of quality) and work to ensure there is reporting and accountability for quality measures; create a consolidated quality statement similar to a financial statement; ensure the integrity of the data used to measure and report quality and safety performance; and transparently report performance and create an explicit accountability model. Originality/value This governance and management system for quality and safety functions similar to a finance system, with quality performance documented and reported, data integrity monitored, and accountability for performance from board to bedside. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first description of how a board has taken this type of systematic approach to oversee the quality of care.


2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen C Nanji ◽  
Timothy G Ferris ◽  
David F Torchiana ◽  
Gregg S Meyer

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  

Health care organizations in the United States struggle to maintain safety and provide quality patient care. In a complex policy environment, the Joint Commission has directed its efforts toward helping health systems achieve high reliability health care. Heath care organizations, facing both accreditation imperatives and political challenges, are mired in the uncertainty of resource availability. The challenges of high reliability in a high stakes industry elude even the most seasoned CEOs and administrators. In particular, it is essential at this time is to pinpoint how public health policy, when coupled with development of high reliability culture, informs implementation of quality and safety at the local level and advances Joint Commission directives related to high reliability care. This theoretically focused paper explores the phenomena of quality and safety from the vantage of two differing lenses, practice and policy. The theoretical analysis of high reliability health care (policy, organizational structure, and actors) contributes to further understanding the challenges facing high reliability patient care implementation throughout hospital systems in the United States. Discussion highlights appropriateness of model fit, whether a top down approach to patient care is realistic, and possible challenges of a centralized policy in an inherently decentralized industry environment. Conclusions reinforce the need for local health care systems and administrators to adopt and adapt the Joint Commission’s high reliability model to their system to correct industry failures.


Author(s):  
Justin Waring ◽  
Davina Allen ◽  
Jeffrey Braithwaite ◽  
Jane Sandall

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document