Beyond Low-Hanging Fruit: A Systematic Approach to Assessing Quality Improvement Needs in Healthcare Practices
Hysong, S. J.; Modi, V.; Wichmann, M.; Murphy, D. R.
Show abstract
Quality Improvement (QI) tools abound to help clinicians improve the quality of their care. Such tools, however, assume one knows the process that needs attention. A systematic approach is thus needed for selecting the QI activities that have the greatest impact on quality. This study applies Functional Job Analysis (FJA) to systematically identify areas in preventive care most suitable for high-impact QI efforts. Seven internal medicine practice personnel served as subject matter experts (SMEs) in multiple FJA style focus groups to identify the tasks required to ensure successful execution of eight preventive-care measures. Tasks with the greatest prevalence across measures and highest human error consequence ratings were deemed most suitable for QI. SMEs generated improvement recommendations for the identified tasks via focus groups. Tasks with greatest cross-measure prevalence centered on information gathering; tasks with the greatest potential consequence of error centered on medication management, testing and test follow-up (MMTTF). SMEs reported time, space, staffing, and equipment constraints as fundamental barriers impacting all aspects of primary care. Barriers to successful information gathering included issues with front desk staff and the electronic health record. Barriers to MMTTF included lab workflow and patient-related factors. Improvement recommendations included strategic staffing, technology-based solutions, and added in-house testing capabilities. FJA successfully identified two clear, distinct clinic workflow areas that could benefit from QI initiatives. Although our work is limited by its single-site design, results are consistent with prior multi-site FJA research. Contrary to traditional, disease-specific QI approaches, our work identified a core set of processes that, if optimized, can improve care across multiple clinical conditions, and presented a novel application of a classic HR tool to make more systematic QI decisions.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach 96%
- Development of the Tool for Advancing Practice Performance, a practice-level survey to assess primary care structures and processes 94%
- The experiences, challenges, and enablers for promoting interprofessional education among medical students: A Scoping Review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 93%
- Impact of the Federated Data Platform's digital surgery scheduling system on elective theatre utilisation at an NHS Trust: an interrupted time series analysis 93%
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Physician experiences of electronic health records interoperability and its practical impact on care delivery in the English NHS: A cross-sectional survey study 94%
- Evaluating a first fully automated interview grounded in Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) methodology: results from a feasibility study 93%
- Physicians in the management and leadership of health care: A systematic review of the conditions conducive to organizational performance 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of Primary Care Team Configuration on Access and Quality of Care 94%
- Barriers and Facilitators to Heart Failure Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in an Integrated Health System and Federally-Qualified Health Centers: A Thematic Qualitative Analysis 90%
- An Evaluation of the Vulnerable Physician Workforce in the United States During the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.