The Importance Of Quality Improvement In Healthcare

Article Review and Evaluation

The United States spends more money on healthcare than any other nation. The National Center for Health Statistics (2013) reported the United States spent $2.3 trillion on healthcare during 2011. Unfortunately, this excessive spending has not produced exceptional results. For example, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States healthcare system last out of 11 healthcare systems regarding efficiency and performance (Davis, Stremikis, Squires, & Schoen, 2014). However, healthcare leaders have experimented with implementing a variety of quality and performance improvement strategies. Many of these strategies have resulted in significant advancements regarding quality and safety.

Akins, R. B. (2004). Clinical

23 quality improvement and patient safety healthcare experts rate 31 MBNQA critical processes and 58 performance measures on a Likert scale of 0-4.0 to determine their degree of importance. Atkins recognizes three of the four most critical processes (senior leadership direction, institutional governance, and setting performance goals) are in the leadership category. The fourth critical process involves ensuring the availability of reliable, secure, and user-friendly data. Further, the leadership category is the most important category while the patient focus is the lowest ranking category. All MBNQA performance measures rank at least 3.0, indicating the experts consider them either “very important” or

As a result, the way in which a facility collects, tracks, and analyzes data is a very important mechanism for quality improvement programs. Further, focusing leadership development in the areas of direction, governance, and goals will contribute to improved quality programs.

Qianmei, F., & Manuel, C. M. (2008). Under the knife: A national survey of six sigma programs in US healthcare organizations. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 21(6), 535-47. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09526860810900691

Qianmei & Manuel surveys 15 healthcare facilities that implement the six sigma method to investigate its effectiveness. They find most projects that utilize the six sigma method last four to seven months. However, the problem scope and lack of resources contribute to extended durations. In addition, the availability of data is a major factor in project delays, especially when it is required from multiple departments. Facilities report initial projects are generally small and produce positive and quick results. They establish the majority of initial cost are reserved for training black and green belts. However, the costs gradually decrease to the amount of their salaries. Moreover, they suggest the return on investment could be substantial after four years of