A new framework that integrates inclusivity and quality improvement science for healthcare managers

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 13477
Author(s):  
Ansie Prinsloo ◽  
Rica Viljoen
2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie E Reed ◽  
Nicola Davey ◽  
Thomas Woodcock

Author(s):  
Loren Riskin ◽  
Alex Macario

This chapter, “Complex Systems and Approaches to Quality Improvement,” serves as an introduction to complex systems management and current thinking in improvement science. It explains the context behind quality improvement (QI) initiatives, beginning with a discussion of the ultimate goals of this movement. It then briefly reviews the history of QI development and early leaders in the field. The universal elements of a successful QI or patient safety project are discussed, followed by the exploration of commonly encountered barriers to systems and individual improvement. The chapter also highlights the differences between QI work and traditional research study. Selected tools to examine and prevent risk are explored, including informal approaches, Deming’s model for improvement, Six Sigma, healthcare failure mode and effects analysis (HFMEA), and root cause analysis (RCA).


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (S6) ◽  
pp. S61-S68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Hickey ◽  
Jean A. Connor ◽  
Kotturathu M. Cherian ◽  
Kathy Jenkins ◽  
Kaitlin Doherty ◽  
...  

AbstractAcross the globe, the implementation of quality improvement science and collaborative learning has positively affected the care and outcomes for children born with CHD. These efforts have advanced the collective expertise and performance of inter-professional healthcare teams. In this review, we highlight selected quality improvement initiatives and strategies impacting the field of cardiovascular care and describe implications for future practice and research. The continued leveraging of technology, commitment to data transparency, focus on team-based practice, and recognition of cultural norms and preferences ensure the success of sustainable models of global collaboration.


2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. S2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice C Bernet ◽  
David E Willens ◽  
Mark S Bauer

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-346
Author(s):  
Soumitri Sil ◽  
Alana Goldstein-Leever ◽  
Curtis Travers ◽  
Jordan Gilleland-Marchak ◽  
Ashley Alexander ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Lambl ◽  
Maureen Duram ◽  
Monique Freeley ◽  
Nathan Kaufman ◽  
William O'Neill ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 94-106
Author(s):  
Bonniface Oryokot ◽  
Yunus Miya ◽  
Barbara Logose ◽  
Eunice Ajambo ◽  
Abraham Ignatius Oluka ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darpan I. Patel ◽  
Kathleen R. Stevens ◽  
Frank Puga

The purpose of this paper is to report the variance in institutional review board (IRB) reviews as part of the implementation of a multisite, quality improvement study through the Improvement Science Research Network (ISRN) and recommend strategies successful in procuring timely IRB approval. Using correspondence documents as data sources, the level of review was identified and time to submission, time to approval, and time to study start were analyzed. Thirteen of the 14 IRBs conducted independent reviews of the project. Twelve IRBs approved the study through expedited review while two IRBs reviewed the project at a full board meeting. Lastly, 11 of the 14 sites required documented consent. The greatest delay in approval was seen early on in the IRB process with site PIs averaging 45.1 ± 31.8 days to submit the study to the IRB. IRB approvals were relatively quick with an average of 14 ± 5.7 days to approval. The delay in study submission may be attributed to a lack of clear definitions and differing interpretations of the regulations that challenge researchers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document