Linda A. Headrick

Microsystems in Health Care: Part 1. Learning from High-Performing Front-Line Clinical Units

BACKGROUND Clinical microsystems are the small, functional, front-line units that provide most health care to most people. They are the essential building blocks of larger organizations and of the health system. They are the place where patients and providers meet. The quality and value of care produced by a large health system can be no better than the services generated by the small systems of which it is composed. METHODS A wide net was cast to identify and study a sampling of the best-quality, best-value small clinical units in North America. Twenty microsystems, representing different component parts of the health system, were examined from December 2000 through June 2001, using qualitative methods supplemented by medical record and finance reviews. RESULTS The study of the 20 high-performing sites generated many best practice ideas (processes and methods) that microsystems use to accomplish their goals. Nine success characteristics were related to high performance: leadership, culture, macro-organizational support of microsystems, patient focus, staff focus, interdependence of care team, information and information technology, process improvement, and performance patterns. These success factors were interrelated and together contributed to the microsystems ability to provide superior, cost-effective care and at the same time create a positive and attractive working environment. CONCLUSIONS A seamless, patient-centered, high-quality, safe, and efficient health system cannot be realized without the transformation of the essential building blocks that combine to form the care continuum.

Problem-based learning outcomes: ten years of experience at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine.

Purpose To add to a previous publication from the University of Missouri—Columbia School of Medicine (UMCSOM) on students’ improvement in United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores after the implementation of a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum by studying the performance of ten PBL class cohorts at the UMCSOM. Method Characteristics of graduating classes matriculating in both traditional and PBL curricula, 1993–2006, were compared for Medical College Admission Test component scores, undergraduate grade point averages, performance on the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 exams, faculty contact hours, and residency directors’ evaluations of UMCSOM graduates’ performance in the first year of residency. Results Mean scores of six of the ten comparisons for USMLE Step 1 and six of nine comparisons for USMLE Step 2 are significantly higher (p < .01) for UMCSOM PBL students than for first-time examinees nationally. These differences cannot be accounted for by preselection of academically advantaged students, increased time on task, or reduced class size. Gains in performance continue into residency, as evidenced by program directors’ perceptions of superior performance of UMCSOM PBL graduates. Conclusions The PBL curricular changes implemented with the graduating class of 1997 resulted in higher performances on USMLEs and improved evaluations from residency program directors. These changes better prepare graduates with knowledge and skills needed to practice within a complex health care system. Outcomes reported here support the investment of financial and human resources in our PBL curriculum.

Quality Health Care

Despite a long history in industry, the principles and methods of continuous improvement are new to medicine. Continuous improvement led to a 73% drop in the number of inadequate cervical smears in a large urban health center.

Collaborating for improvement in health professions education.

Continual improvement efforts have been slower in health professions education than in health care delivery. This article identifies the lessons learned by teams working in an Interdisciplinary Professional Education Collaborative in overcoming barriers to carrying out continual improvement efforts in these educational organizations.

Guidelines for appraisal and publication of PDSA quality improvement.

Plan-do-study-act (PDSA) quality improvement is the application of the scientific method to implement and test the effects of change ideas on the performance of the health care system. Users of quality improvement could benefit with markers to gauge the “best” science. Four core questions can determine the value of a quality improvement study: Is the quality improvement study pertinent and relevant? Are the results valid? Are appropriate criteria used to interpret the results? Will the study help you with your practice or organization of care? A set of guidelines is provided to help answer these questions. Similar guidelines exist for randomized clinical trials and clinical-epidemiologic observational studies. Analogous to these existing research guidelines, the PDSA quality improvement guidelines will provide researchers and reviewers with succinct standards of methodological rigor to assist in critical appraisal of quality improvement protocols and publications.

Continuous self-improvement: systems thinking in a personal context.

BACKGROUND Continuous quality improvement (CQI) thinking and tools have broad applicability to improving peoples lives--in continuous self-improvement (CSI). Examples include weight loss, weight gain, increasing exercise time, and improving relationship with spouse. In addition, change agents, who support and facilitate organizational efforts, can use CSI to help employees understand steps in CQI. A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH: Team members should be involved in both the definition of the problem and the search for the solution. How do everyday processes and routines affect the habit that needs to change? What are the precursors of the event? Clients list possible solutions, prioritize them, and pilot test the items selected. One needs to change the daily routines until the desired behavior is accomplished habitually and with little external decision. DISCUSSION CSI is successful because of its emphasis on habits embedded in personal processes. CSI organizes support from process owners, buddies, and coaches, and encourages regular measurement, multiple small improvement cycles, and public reporting.

Teaching medical students about quality and cost of care at Case Western Reserve University

No abstract available.

Teaching Medical Faculty How to Apply Continuous Quality Improvement to Medical Education

BACKGROUND An eight-hour workshop was conducted at a professional meeting in 1996 to introduce medical faculty to the principles of continuous quality improvement (CQI) as they relate to change in medical education and to provide participants with opportunities to use specific tools for applications to education. Four two-hour sessions focused on an introduction to CQI, understanding and mapping processes, identifying change ideas, and testing a change for improvement. TESTING A CHANGE FOR IMPROVEMENT The goals of the final session were to plan a pilot test of an improvement, identify the steps of the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle, and consider change for improvement in the context of ones own organization. Working in small groups, participants chose a specific change one might try in the following example: improving student performance in a neuroscience course. POSTSESSION EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP: Immediately following the workshop sessions, participants represented by administrators in medical education and clinical and basic science teaching faculty completed evaluations on the usefulness and likelihood of their using CQI tools. One year later, of the 32 workshop registrants who were mailed surveys, 15 respondents rated their change in understanding of CQI and their use of CQI techniques. More than 60% of the respondents reported application of CQI principles at their organizations. CQI methods used most frequently included structured team meetings, prioritizing opportunities, and brainstorming. CONCLUSION The significant application of CQI principles and methods reported by participants one year after a brief intervention supports a need and utility for CQI principles and tools in medical education.

Introducing Quality Improvement Thinking to Medical Students: The Cleveland Asthma Project

This article describes a medical schools effort to introduce quality improvement (QI) concepts and methods through experiential learning to students as part of a required eight-week primary care clerkship. Each student describes a patient with asthma, investigates the cost of care, and assesses the outcome through an interview with the patient. These patients are considered together as recipients of an areawide process of care. The statistical tools of QI were adapted in a workbook to help students understand care as a process and their role as physicians in improving it.

Linking health professional learners and health care workers on action-based improvement teams.

Background and Methods Medical students, nursing students, and other health care professionals in training were integrated with health care workers on interprofessional quality improvement (QI) teams at our academic health center. Teams received training in QI, accompanied by expert QI mentoring, with dual goals of increasing expertise in improvement while improving care. Results Eighty-six learners and health system workers participated in 12 improvement teams in 2 years. Upon completion of the training, participants expressed that the program enhanced QI and teamwork skills and increased understanding of other health care professions. At the end of the program, fourth-year medical students showed greater ability to apply QI skills, as measured by the QI Knowledge Assessment Tool than did control students who did not participate in the program (P < .0001 in 2006–2007 and P < .0005 in 2007–2008). Many teams were successful in improving care processes. Conclusion The design of “learning QI by doing,” accompanied by just-in-time training and ongoing expert mentoring in QI, was identified by faculty as the most important factor contributing to success. This model successfully improved application of QI skills by learners while improving care within our academic health center. Testing of the model at other academic health centers and in other training environments is warranted.