| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
VIEWPOINT |
1 Reader in Public Management and Director of Research, Manchester Centre for Healthcare Management, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
2 Lecturer, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Correspondence to:
Dr K Walshe, Manchester Centre for Healthcare Management, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
kieran.walshe{at}man.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
The effectiveness of many quality improvement interventions has been studied, and research suggests that most have highly variable effects which depend heavily on the context in which they are used and the way they are implemented. This has three important implications. Firstly, it means that the approach to quality improvement used in an organisation probably matters less than how and by whom it is used. Rather than taking up, trying, and then discarding a succession of different quality improvement techniques, organisations should probably choose one carefully and then persevere to make it work. Secondly, future research into quality improvement interventions should be directed more at understanding how and why they work—the determinants of effectiveness—rather than measuring whether they work. Thirdly, some element of evaluation should be incorporated into every quality improvement programme so that its effectiveness can be monitored and the information can be used to improve the systems for improvement.
Keywords: quality improvement; evaluation techniques
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. Davidoff, P. Batalden, D. Stevens, G. Ogrinc, S. Mooney, and for the SQUIRE Development Group Publication Guidelines for Improvement Studies in Health Care: Evolution of the SQUIRE Project Ann Intern Med, November 4, 2008; 149(9): 670 - 676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Walshe Understanding what works--and why--in quality improvement: the need for theory-driven evaluation Int. J. Qual. Health Care, April 1, 2007; 19(2): 57 - 59. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O A Arah and N S Klazinga How safe is the safety paradigm? Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2004; 13(3): 226 - 232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Axelsson and S. Elmstahl Home care aides in the administration of medication Int. J. Qual. Health Care, June 1, 2004; 16(3): 237 - 243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Qvist, L. Rasmussen, B. Bonnevie, and T. Gjorup Repeated measurements of generic indicators: a Danish national program to benchmark and improve quality of care Int. J. Qual. Health Care, April 1, 2004; 16(2): 141 - 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Locock Healthcare redesign: meaning, origins and application Qual. Saf. Health Care, February 1, 2003; 12(1): 53 - 57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
