Posted inCardiagtech

How Quality Control Programs Improve Nursing Care

No Comments

Quality control programs are essential in healthcare, particularly in nursing, to ensure patients receive the highest standard of care. In today’s complex healthcare environment, maintaining and improving the quality of nursing care is not just an ideal, but a necessity for patient safety and positive health outcomes. This article explores how quality control programs significantly contribute to enhancing nursing care, drawing on evidence-based strategies and methodologies that drive improvement and foster a culture of excellence.

Understanding Quality Control in Nursing

Quality health care is fundamentally about delivering services that consistently improve patient health and align with the best professional knowledge. The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) landmark report, To Err Is Human, highlighted that medical errors are predominantly system-related rather than individual failings. This underscores the importance of robust quality control programs in nursing to address systemic issues and prevent errors. Factors such as inefficient processes, variations in patient needs, and the complexity of healthcare systems all contribute to the challenges in delivering consistent, high-quality nursing care. Quality control programs provide a structured approach to navigate these complexities and ensure consistent and effective care delivery.

What are Quality Control Programs?

Quality control programs in nursing are systematic frameworks designed to monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of care provided to patients. These programs are proactive and reactive, aiming to prevent errors before they occur and to address issues when they arise. They encompass a range of activities, including:

  • Establishing Standards: Defining clear, measurable standards for nursing practice based on evidence-based guidelines and best practices.
  • Performance Measurement: Regularly assessing nursing performance against these established standards using various metrics and data collection methods.
  • Performance Comparison: Benchmarking performance against internal goals, external standards, and best-performing organizations to identify areas for improvement.
  • Identifying Gaps: Analyzing performance data to pinpoint discrepancies between current practice and desired standards.
  • Implementing Improvements: Developing and executing strategies to close identified gaps and enhance nursing care processes.
  • Continuous Monitoring: Ongoing evaluation of implemented changes to ensure sustained improvement and to identify new areas for refinement.

Why are Quality Control Programs Important in Nursing?

The implementation of quality control programs in nursing is crucial for several key reasons:

  • Enhancing Patient Safety: By identifying and mitigating potential risks and errors in nursing practice, these programs directly contribute to a safer care environment for patients.
  • Improving Patient Outcomes: Quality control ensures adherence to best practices, leading to better clinical outcomes, increased patient satisfaction, and improved overall health status.
  • Increasing Efficiency and Reducing Costs: Streamlined processes and error reduction through quality control can lead to more efficient use of resources, reduced waste, and lower healthcare costs.
  • Ensuring Accountability and Professional Standards: These programs promote accountability among nursing staff and ensure that care delivery aligns with professional standards and ethical guidelines.
  • Fostering a Culture of Continuous Improvement: Quality control programs instill a mindset of ongoing evaluation and improvement, encouraging nurses to proactively seek ways to enhance their practice and patient care.

Key Components of Effective Quality Control Programs

Effective quality control programs in nursing share several common components:

  • Clear Objectives and Scope: Well-defined goals and a clear understanding of the program’s focus are essential for targeted and impactful improvements.
  • Data-Driven Approach: Reliance on accurate and relevant data for performance measurement and decision-making ensures objectivity and evidence-based improvements.
  • Multidisciplinary Involvement: Engaging nurses, physicians, administrators, and other healthcare professionals fosters collaboration and a holistic approach to quality improvement.
  • Use of Improvement Methodologies: Employing structured methodologies like PDSA, Six Sigma, and Lean provides a systematic framework for implementing and evaluating changes.
  • Feedback and Communication: Regular feedback to nursing staff on performance data and open communication channels are vital for engagement and program success.
  • Leadership Support: Strong leadership commitment and support are crucial for providing resources, fostering a positive environment, and driving the quality improvement agenda.

Strategies and Tools for Quality Improvement in Nursing

Numerous strategies and tools are available to implement quality control programs in nursing. These methodologies offer structured approaches to identify, analyze, and resolve issues impacting nursing care quality.

Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Cycle in Nursing

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a widely used iterative approach for quality improvement. It promotes rapid cycle improvement through small, frequent tests of change. In nursing, PDSA can be applied to:

  • Problem Identification (Plan): Define a specific problem in nursing care, such as medication administration errors or patient falls. Plan a change to address this issue.
  • Implementing Change (Do): Pilot the planned change on a small scale, such as on one nursing unit.
  • Evaluating Impact (Study): Analyze the data collected during the pilot phase to understand the impact of the change. Did it lead to the desired improvement? Were there any unintended consequences?
  • Acting on Results (Act): Based on the study findings, either adopt the change, adapt it and run another PDSA cycle, or abandon it if it’s not effective.

This cyclical approach allows for continuous refinement and adaptation of interventions to optimize their effectiveness in improving nursing care.

Six Sigma in Nursing

Six Sigma is a data-driven methodology focused on reducing process variation and defects. In nursing, Six Sigma can be used to:

  • Define Problems: Clearly define areas of nursing care that need improvement, focusing on measurable defects or variations.
  • Measure Performance: Collect data to understand the current performance of the identified process, establishing a baseline.
  • Analyze Root Causes: Analyze the data to identify the root causes contributing to variations or defects in nursing care.
  • Improve Processes: Implement solutions and process changes to eliminate root causes and reduce variation.
  • Control Performance: Establish mechanisms to monitor the improved process and sustain the gains achieved, preventing recurrence of defects.

Six Sigma’s structured DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) approach provides a rigorous framework for achieving significant and sustainable improvements in nursing processes.

Lean Methodology in Nursing

Lean methodology, derived from the Toyota Production System, focuses on eliminating waste and maximizing value in processes. In nursing, Lean principles can be applied to:

  • Identify Waste: Pinpoint non-value-added activities in nursing workflows, such as unnecessary documentation, redundant tasks, or inefficient supply management.
  • Streamline Processes: Redesign nursing processes to eliminate identified waste, optimize workflows, and improve efficiency.
  • Improve Patient Flow: Apply Lean principles to enhance patient flow, reduce wait times, and optimize resource utilization in nursing units.
  • Enhance Value-Added Activities: Focus on maximizing activities that directly contribute to patient care and positive outcomes.

Lean methodology helps nursing teams create more efficient, patient-centered processes that deliver high-quality care while minimizing waste and maximizing value.

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) in Nursing

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a reactive problem-solving method used to investigate adverse events or near misses. In nursing, RCA is crucial for:

  • Investigating Errors: Conducting thorough investigations into nursing errors, such as medication errors, falls, or infections, to understand the underlying causes.
  • Identifying System Failures: Focusing on identifying system-level factors rather than individual blame, uncovering process flaws, communication breakdowns, or inadequate resources that contributed to the event.
  • Developing Corrective Actions: Based on the RCA findings, developing and implementing action plans to address root causes and prevent similar events from recurring.

RCA helps nursing organizations learn from errors, improve systems, and create a safer environment for patients.

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in Nursing

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a proactive risk assessment tool used to identify potential failures in a process before they occur. In nursing, FMEA can be used to:

  • Process Mapping: Map out critical nursing processes, such as medication administration, patient handoffs, or infection control protocols.
  • Identify Failure Modes: For each step in the process, identify potential ways it could fail (failure modes).
  • Assess Effects: Analyze the potential effects or consequences of each failure mode on patient safety and quality of care.
  • Prioritize Risks: Prioritize failure modes based on their severity and likelihood of occurrence.
  • Develop Preventive Actions: Develop and implement actions to prevent or mitigate the identified failure modes, proactively enhancing process safety.

FMEA enables nursing teams to anticipate potential problems, design safer processes, and prevent errors before they impact patients.

Health Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) in Nursing

Health Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) is a specialized adaptation of FMEA tailored for healthcare settings. It provides a structured approach to proactive risk assessment in nursing by:

  • Detailed Hazard Analysis: Providing a more detailed and systematic approach to hazard analysis in healthcare processes.
  • Hazard Scoring Matrix: Using a hazard scoring matrix to quantify the risk associated with each failure mode based on severity and probability.
  • Decision Tree Analysis: Employing decision tree analysis to guide the decision-making process for determining which failure modes warrant further action and preventive measures.

HFMEA offers a robust and structured methodology for nursing teams to proactively identify and mitigate potential risks, enhancing patient safety and care quality.

The Impact of Quality Control Programs on Nursing Care

The implementation of effective quality control programs has a profound and positive impact on various aspects of nursing care.

Improved Patient Safety and Reduced Errors

Quality control programs are instrumental in creating safer patient care environments. By proactively identifying potential risks through tools like FMEA and HFMEA, and reactively addressing errors through RCA, these programs minimize the occurrence of adverse events. Standardized protocols, checklists, and improved communication processes, often implemented as part of quality improvement initiatives, directly reduce the likelihood of errors in medication administration, patient identification, and other critical nursing tasks.

Enhanced Patient Outcomes and Satisfaction

By ensuring adherence to evidence-based practices and focusing on continuous improvement, quality control programs contribute to better patient outcomes. Nurses in environments with robust quality control are better equipped to provide effective, timely, and patient-centered care. This leads to improved clinical outcomes, reduced complications, shorter hospital stays, and ultimately, higher patient satisfaction. Furthermore, patient feedback mechanisms, often integrated into quality programs, ensure that care is aligned with patient needs and preferences.

Increased Efficiency and Reduced Costs

Quality control programs often identify inefficiencies and areas of waste within nursing workflows. Lean methodologies, in particular, are effective in streamlining processes, eliminating redundant tasks, and optimizing resource utilization. Improved efficiency not only benefits patients through quicker and more responsive care but also reduces operational costs for healthcare organizations. Reduced errors and complications also translate into lower costs associated with adverse events and readmissions.

Professional Development and Staff Empowerment

Engaging nurses in quality control programs fosters a culture of continuous learning and professional development. Nurses involved in quality improvement initiatives gain valuable skills in data analysis, problem-solving, and teamwork. These programs empower nurses to take ownership of their practice, contribute to system improvements, and enhance their professional satisfaction. Recognition and celebration of successes within quality programs further boost morale and reinforce a positive work environment.

Implementing Successful Quality Control Programs in Nursing

Successful implementation of quality control programs in nursing requires a strategic and comprehensive approach.

Leadership Support and Commitment

Strong leadership support is paramount. Leaders must champion quality improvement, allocate necessary resources, and actively participate in quality initiatives. Visible commitment from senior leadership signals the importance of quality to all staff and fosters a supportive environment for change. Leaders also play a crucial role in holding teams accountable and ensuring that quality improvement is integrated into the organization’s strategic goals.

Creating a Culture of Safety and Improvement

A culture that values safety and continuous improvement is essential. This involves promoting open communication, encouraging error reporting without fear of blame, and fostering a proactive approach to problem-solving. A non-punitive culture allows for learning from mistakes and system-wide improvements. Celebrating successes and recognizing contributions to quality improvement further reinforces a positive culture.

Stakeholder Involvement and Teamwork

Effective quality control programs require the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including nurses, physicians, administrators, patients, and families. Multidisciplinary teams bring diverse perspectives and expertise to quality improvement initiatives. Teamwork, collaboration, and effective communication are crucial for successful problem identification, solution development, and implementation of changes.

Data-Driven Decision Making

Quality control must be data-driven. Reliable data collection systems, performance metrics, and analytical tools are necessary to monitor performance, identify trends, and measure the impact of interventions. Data provides objective evidence to guide decision-making and ensure that improvement efforts are targeted and effective. Regular feedback of data to nursing staff is essential for transparency and engagement.

Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation

Quality improvement is not a one-time project but an ongoing process. Continuous monitoring and evaluation are necessary to sustain improvements, identify new areas for focus, and adapt strategies as needed. Regular audits, performance reviews, and feedback mechanisms ensure that quality control programs remain effective and responsive to evolving needs and challenges.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite the clear benefits, implementing and sustaining quality control programs in nursing can present challenges.

Barriers to Implementing Quality Control Programs

Common barriers include:

  • Resistance to Change: Healthcare professionals may resist changes to established routines and processes.
  • Lack of Resources: Implementing quality programs requires investment in time, training, and technology, which may be constrained by budget limitations.
  • Data Collection and Analysis Challenges: Collecting and analyzing meaningful data can be complex and time-consuming.
  • Sustaining Engagement: Maintaining long-term engagement and motivation among staff in quality improvement initiatives can be challenging.
  • Complexity of Healthcare Systems: The intricate nature of healthcare systems can make it difficult to implement system-wide changes effectively.

The Role of Technology in Quality Control

Technology plays an increasingly vital role in enhancing quality control in nursing. Electronic health records (EHRs), data analytics platforms, and quality management software streamline data collection, analysis, and reporting. Technology can also support the implementation of standardized protocols, provide real-time alerts and reminders, and facilitate communication and collaboration among team members. Predictive analytics and artificial intelligence are emerging tools that can further enhance proactive risk identification and quality improvement efforts.

Future Trends in Quality Improvement in Nursing

The future of quality improvement in nursing is likely to be shaped by several trends:

  • Increased Focus on Patient-Centered Care: Quality programs will increasingly emphasize patient perspectives, preferences, and shared decision-making.
  • Integration of Technology: Advancements in technology will drive more sophisticated and data-driven quality improvement approaches.
  • Emphasis on Proactive Risk Management: Proactive tools like FMEA and HFMEA will be more widely adopted to prevent errors before they occur.
  • Value-Based Care Models: The shift towards value-based care will further incentivize quality improvement efforts that enhance patient outcomes and reduce costs.
  • Interprofessional Collaboration: Quality improvement initiatives will increasingly involve interprofessional teams to address the complex needs of patients holistically.

Conclusion

Quality control programs are indispensable for improving nursing care and ensuring patient safety in today’s healthcare landscape. By adopting structured methodologies, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, and leveraging data-driven approaches, healthcare organizations can significantly enhance the quality of nursing services. The commitment to quality control is not just an operational imperative but a moral one, reflecting the dedication of nursing professionals to providing the best possible care for every patient. As healthcare continues to evolve, the principles and practices of quality control will remain fundamental to advancing nursing excellence and achieving optimal patient outcomes.

References

  1. National Healthcare Quality Report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006. [Accessed March 16, 2008]. http://www​.ahrq.gov/qual/nhqr06/nhqr06​.htm.
  2. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. pp. 164–80. [PubMed: 25057539]
  3. Lohr KN, Schroeder SA. A strategy for quality assurance in Medicare. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1161–71. [PubMed: 2406600]
  4. Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
  5. McNally MK, Page MA, Sunderland VB. Failure mode and effects analysis in improving a drug distribution system. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1997;54:17–7. [PubMed: 9117805]
  6. Varkey P, Peller K, Resar RK. Basics of quality improvement in health care. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(6):735–9. [PubMed: 17550754]
  7. Marshall M, Shekelle P, Davies H, et al. Public reporting on quality in the United States and the United Kingdom. Health Aff. 2003;22(3):134–48. [PubMed: 12757278]
  8. Loeb J. The current state of performance measurement in healthcare. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(Suppl 1):i5–9. [PubMed: 15059982]
  9. National Healthcare Disparities Report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006. [Accessed March 16, 2008]. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr06/nhdr06​.htm.
  10. Schoen C, Davis K, How SKH, et al. U.S. health system performance: a national scorecard. Health Affiars. 2006:w457–75. [PubMed: 16987933]
  11. Wakefield DS, Hendryx MS, Uden-Holman T, et al. Comparing providers’ performance: problems in making the ‘report card’ analogy fit. J Healthc Qual. 1996;18(6):4–10. [PubMed: 10162089]
  12. Marshall M, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, et al. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain, a review of the evidence. JAMA. 2000;283:1866–74. [PubMed: 10770149]
  13. Schneider EC, Lieberman T. Publicly disclosed information about the quality of health care: response of the U.S. public. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:96–103. [PMC free article: PMC1757976] [PubMed: 11389318]
  14. Hibbard JH, Harris-Kojetin L, Mullin P, et al. Increasing the impact of health plan report cards by addressing consumers’ concerns. Health Affairs. 2000 Sept/Oct;19:138–43. [PubMed: 10992661]
  15. Bentley JM, Nask DB. How Pennsylvania hospitals have responded to publicly release reports on coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24(1):40–9. [PubMed: 9494873]
  16. Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M, et al. The nonspread of innovations: the mediating role of professionals. Acad Manage J. 2005;48(1):117–34.
  17. Glouberman S, Mintzberg H. Managing the care of health and the cure of disease– part I: differentiation. Health Care Manage Rev. 2001;26(1):56–9. [PubMed: 11233354]
  18. Degeling P, Kennedy J, Hill M. Mediating the cultural boundaries between medicine, nursing and management—the central challenge in hospital reform. Health Serv Manage Res. 2001;14(1):36–48. [PubMed: 11246783]
  19. Gaba DM. Structural and organizational issues is patient safety: a comparison of health care to other high-hazard industries. Calif Manage Rev. 2000;43(1):83–102.
  20. Lee JL, Change ML, Pearson ML, et al. Does what nurses do affect clinical outcomes for hospitalized patients? A review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 1999;29(11):39–45. [PMC free article: PMC1089070] [PubMed: 10591270]
  21. Taylor C. Problem solving in clinical nursing practice. J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:329–36. [PubMed: 9292367]
  22. Benner P. From novice to expert: power and excellence in nursing practice . Menlo Part, CA: Addison-Wesley; Publishing Company: 1984.
  23. March JG, Sproull LS, Tamuz M. Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organizational Science. 1991;2(1):1–13.
  24. McGlynn EA, Asch SM. Developing a clinical performance measure. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(3s):14–21. [PubMed: 9566932]
  25. McGlynn EA. Choosing and evaluating clinical performance measures. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24(9):470–9. [PubMed: 9770637]
  26. Gift RG, Mosel D. Benchmarking in health care. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Publishing, Inc.; 1994. p. 5.
  27. Donabedian A. Evaluating quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 1966;44:166–206. [PubMed: 5338568]
  28. Deming WE. Out of the Crisis . Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study; 1986.
  29. Berwick DM, Godfrey AB, Roessner J. Curing health care . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002.
  30. Wallin L, Bostrom AM, Wikblad K, et al. Sustainability in changing clinical practice promotes evidence-based nursing care. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41(5):509–18. [PubMed: 12603576]
  31. Berwick DM. Developing and testing changes in delivery of care. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:651–6. [PubMed: 9537939]
  32. Chassin MR. Quality of Care–part 3: Improving the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996:1060–3. [PubMed: 8793935]
  33. Horn SD, Hickey JV, Carrol TL, et al. Can evidence-based medicine and outcomes research contribute to error reduction? In: Rosenthal MM, Sutcliffe KN, editors. Medical error: what do we know? What do we do? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002. pp. 157–73.
  34. Joss R. What makes for successful TQM in the NHS? Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 1994;7(7):4–9. [PubMed: 10140850]
  35. Nwabueze U, Kanji GK. The implementation of total quality management in the NHS: how to avoid failure. Total Quality Management. 1997;8(5):265–80.
  36. Jackson S. Successfully implementing total quality management tools within healthcare: what are the key actions? Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2001;14(4):157–63.
  37. Rago WV. Struggles in transformation: a study in TQM, leadership and organizational culture in a government agency. Public Adm Rev. 1996;56(3)
  38. Shojania KG, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, et al. Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies, Volume 1–Series Overview and Methodology Technical Review 9 (Contract No 290-02-0017 to the Stanford University–UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center) . Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Aug, 2004. AHRQ Publication No. 04-0051–1. [PubMed: 20734525]
  39. Furman C, Caplan R. Appling the Toyota production system: using a patient safety alert system to reduce error. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33(7):376–86. [PubMed: 17711139]
  40. Womack JP, Jones DT. Lean thinking . New York: Simon and Schuster; 1996.
  41. Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:666–73. [PubMed: 17438310]
  42. Reinhardt AC, Ray LN. Differentiating quality improvement from research. Appl Nurs Res. 2003;16(1):2–8. [PubMed: 12624857]
  43. Blumenthal D, Kilo CM. A report card on continuous quality improvement. Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):625–48. [PMC free article: PMC2751093] [PubMed: 9879305]
  44. Shortell SM, Bennet CL, Byck GR. Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement on clinical practice: what it will take to accelerate progress. Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):593–624. [PMC free article: PMC2751103] [PubMed: 9879304]
  45. Lynn J. When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:67–70. [PMC free article: PMC1758070] [PubMed: 14757803]
  46. Bellin E, Dubler NN. The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1512–7. [PMC free article: PMC1446813] [PubMed: 11527790]
  47. Choo V. Thin line between research and audit. Lancet. 1998;352:1481–6. [PubMed: 9717915]
  48. Harrington L. Quality improvement, research, and the institutional review board. J Healthc Qual. 2007;29(3):4–9. [PubMed: 17708327]
  49. Berwick DM. Eleven worthy aims for clinical leadership of health care reform. JAMA. 1994;272(10):797–802. [PubMed: 8078145]
  50. Berwick DM. Improvement, trust, and the healthcare workforce. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:2–6. [PMC free article: PMC1758027] [PubMed: 14645761]
  51. Langley JG, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, et al. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance . New York: Jossey-Bass; 1996.
  52. Pande PS, Newman RP, Cavanaugh RR. The Six Sigma way . New York: McGraw-Hill; 2000.
  53. Barry R, Murcko AC, Brubaker CE. The Six Sigma book for healthcare: improving outcomes by reducing errors . Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press; 2003.
  54. Lanham B, Maxson-Cooper P. Is Six Sigma the answer for nursing to reduce medical errors and enhance patient safety? Nurs Econ. 2003;21(1):39–41. [PubMed: 12632719]
  55. Shewhart WA. Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1986. p. 45.
  56. Pande PS, Newman RP, Cavanagh RR. The Six Sigma was: team field book . New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
  57. Sahney VK. Generating management research on improving quality. Health Care Manage Rev. 2003;28(4):335–47. [PubMed: 14682675]
  58. Endsley S, Magill MK, Godfrey MM. Creating a lean practice. Fam Pract Manag. 2006;13:34–8. [PubMed: 16671348]
  59. Printezis A, Gopalakrishnan M. Current pulse: can a production system reduce medical errors in health care? Q Manage Health Care. 2007;16(3):226–38. [PubMed: 17627218]
  60. Spear SJ. Fixing health care from the inside, today. Harv Bus Rev. 2005;83(9):78–91. 158. [PubMed: 16171213]
  61. Johnstone PA, Hendrickson JA, Dernbach AJ, et al. Ancillary services in the health care industry: is Six Sigma reasonable? Q Manage Health Care. 2003;12(1):53–63. [PubMed: 12593375]
  62. Reason J. Human Error . New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
  63. Kemppainen JK. The critical incident technique and nursing care quality research. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(5):1264–71. [PubMed: 11115012]
  64. Joint Commission. 2003 hospital accreditation standards. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission Resources; 2003.
  65. Bogner M. Human Error in Medicine . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994.
  66. Rooney JJ, Vanden Heuvel LN. Root cause analysis for beginners. Qual Process . 2004 July; [Accessed on January 5, 2008]; Available at: www​.asq.org.
  67. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284:357–62. [PubMed: 10891968]
  68. Joint Commisssion. Using aggregate root cause analysis to improve patient safety. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2003;29(8):434–9. [PubMed: 12953608]
  69. Wald H, Shojania K. Root cause analysis. In: Shojania K, Duncan B, McDonald KM, et al., editors. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2001. AHRQ Publication Number: 01–058. [PMC free article: PMC4781305] [PubMed: 11510252]
  70. Bagian JP, Gosbee J, Lee CZ, et al. The Veterans Affairs root cause analysis system in action. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28(10):531–45. [PubMed: 12369156]
  71. Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA. 1994;272:1851–7. [PubMed: 7503827]
  72. Institute of Medicine. Keeping Patients Safe: Transforming the Work Environment of Nurses. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2004.
  73. Benner P, Sheets V, Uris P, et al. Individual, practice, and system causes of errors in nursing: a taxonomy. JONA. 2002;32(10):509–23. [PubMed: 12394596]
  74. Spath PL, Hickey P. Home study programme: using failure mode and effects analysis to improve patient safety. AORN J. 2003;78:16–21. [PubMed: 12885066]
  75. Croteau RJ, Schyve PM. Proactively error-proofing health care processes. In: Spath PL, editor. Error reduction in health care: a systems approach to improving patient safety. Chicago, IL: AHA Press; 2000. pp. 179–98.
  76. Williams E, Talley R. The use of failure mode effect and criticality analysis in a medication error subcommittee. Hosp Pharm. 1994;29:331–6. 339. [PubMed: 10133462]
  77. Reiling GJ, Knutzen BL, Stoecklein M. FMEA–the cure for medical errors. Qual Progress. 2003;36(8):67–71.
  78. Adachi W, Lodolce AE. Use of failure mode and effects analysis in improving safety of IV drug administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005;62:917–20. [PubMed: 15851497]
  79. DeRosier J, Stalhandske E, Bagin JP, et al. Using health care failure mode and effect analysis: the VA National Center for Patient Safety’s Prospective Risk Analysis System. J Qual Improv. 2002;28(5):248–67. [PubMed: 12053459]
  80. Buhr GT, White HK. Management in the nursing home: a pilot study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2006;7:246–53. [PubMed: 16698513]
  81. Guinane CS, Davis NH. The science of Six Sigma in hospitals. Am Heart Hosp J. 2004 Winter;:42–8. [PubMed: 15604839]
  82. Mills PD, Neily J, Luan D, et al. Using aggregate root cause analysis to reduce falls and related injuries. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(1):21–31. [PubMed: 15691207]
  83. Pronovost PJ, Morlock L, Davis RO, et al. Using online and offline change models to improve ICU access and revenues. J Qual Improv. 2000;26(1):5–17. [PubMed: 10677818]
  84. Thompson J, Wieck KL, Warner A. What perioperative and emerging workforce nurses want in a manager. AORN J. 2003;78(2):246–9. 258. passium. [PubMed: 12940425]
  85. Willeumier D. Advocate health care: a systemwide approach to quality and safety. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2004;30(10):559–66. [PubMed: 15518360]
  86. Leape LL, Rogers G, Hanna D, et al. Developing and implementing new safe practices: voluntary adoption through statewide collaboratives. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:289–95. [PMC free article: PMC2564013] [PubMed: 16885255]
  87. Smith DS, Haig K. Reduction of adverse drug events and medication errors in a community hospital setting. Nurs Clin North Am. 2005;40(1):25–32. [PubMed: 15733944]
  88. Jimmerson C, Weber D, Sobek DK. Reducing waste and errors: piloting lean principles at Intermountain Healthcare. J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(5):249–57. [PubMed: 15960015]
  89. Docimo AB, Pronovost PJ, Davis RO, et al. Using the online and offline change model to improve efficiency for fast-track patients in an emergency department. J Qual Improv. 2000;26(9):503–14. [PubMed: 10983291]
  90. Gowdy M, Godfrey S. Using tools to assess and prevent inpatient falls. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2003;29(7):363–8. [PubMed: 12856558]
  91. Germaine J. Six Sigma plan delivers stellar results. Mater Manag Health Care. 2007:20–6. [PubMed: 17506407]
  92. Semple D, Dalessio L. Improving telemetry alarm response to noncritical alarms using a failure mode and effects analysis. J Healthc Qual. 2004;26(5):Web Exclusive: W5-13–W5-19.
  93. Erdek MA, Pronovost PJ. Improving assessment and treatment of pain in the critically ill. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(1):59–64. [PubMed: 15020561]
  94. Burgmeier J. Failure mode and effect analysis: an application in reducing risk in blood transfusion. J Qual Improv. 2002;28(6):331–9. [PubMed: 12066625]
  95. Mutter M. One hospital’s journey toward reducing medication errors. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2003;29(6):279–88. [PubMed: 14564746]
  96. Rex JH, Turnbull JE, Allen SJ, et al. Systematic root cause analysis of adverse drug events in a tertiary referral hospital. J Qual Improv. 2000;26(10):563–75. [PubMed: 11042820]
  97. Bolch D, Johnston JB, Giles LC, et al. Hospital to home: an integrated approach to discharge planning in a rural South Australian town. Aust J Rural Health. 2005;13:91–6. [PubMed: 15804332]
  98. Horbar JD, Plsek PE, Leahy K. NIC/Q 2000: establishing habits for improvement in neonatal intensive care units. Pediatrics. 2003;111:d397–410. [PubMed: 12671159]
  99. Singh R, Singh A, Servoss JT, et al. Prioritizing threats to patient safety in rural primary care. Inform Prim Care. 2007;15(4):221–9.
  100. Dunbar AE, Sharek PJ, Mickas NA, et al. Implementation and case-study results of potentially better practices to improve pain management of neonates. Pediatrics. 2006;118(Supplement 2):S87–94. [PubMed: 17079628]
  101. Weir VL. Best-practice protocols: preventing adverse drug events. Nurs Manage. 2005;36(9):24–30. [PubMed: 16155492]
  102. Plews-Ogan ML, Nadkarni MM, Forren S, et al. Patient safety in the ambulatory setting. A clinician-based approach. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(7):719–25. [PMC free article: PMC1492477] [PubMed: 15209584]
  103. Baird RW. Quality improvement efforts in the intensive care unit: development of a new heparin protocol. BUMC Proceedings. 2001;14:294–6. [PMC free article: PMC1305833] [PubMed: 16369633]
  104. Luther KM, Maguire L, Mazabob J, et al. Engaging nurses in patient safety. Crit Care Nurs Clin N Am. 2002;14(4):341–6. [PubMed: 12400624]
  105. Middleton S, Chapman B, Griffiths R, et al. Reviewing recommendations of root cause analyses. Aust Health Rev. 2007;31(2):288–95. [PubMed: 17470051]
  106. Farbstein K, Clough J. Improving medication safety across a multihospital system. J Qual Improv. 2001;27(3):123–37. [PubMed: 11242719]
  107. Esmail R, Cummings C, Dersch D, et al. Using healthcare failure mode and effect analysis tool to review the process of ordering and administrating potassium chloride and potassium phosphate. Healthc Q. 2005;8:73–80. [PubMed: 16334076]
  108. van Tilburg CM, Liestikow IP, Rademaker CMA, et al. Health care failure mode and effect analysis: a useful proactive risk analysis in a pediatric oncology ward. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:58–64. [PMC free article: PMC2564000] [PubMed: 16456212]
  109. Eisenberg P, Painer JD. Intravascular therapy process improvement in a multihospital system: don’t get stuck with substandard care. Clin Nurse Spec. 2002:182–6. [PubMed: 12172487]
  110. Singh R, Servoss T, Kalsman M, et al. Estimating impacts on safety caused by the introduction of electronic medical records in primary care. Inform Prim Care. 2004;12:235–41. [PubMed: 15808025]
  111. Papastrat K, Wallace S. Teaching baccalaureate nursing students to prevent medication errors using a problem-based learning approach. J Nurs Educ. 2003;42(10):459–64. [PubMed: 14577733]
  112. Berwick DM. Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(1):53–6. [PubMed: 2909878]
  113. Pexton C, Young D. Reducing surgical site infections through Six Sigma and change management. Patient Safety Qual Healthc [e-Newsletter]. 2004. [Accessed November 14, 2007]. Available at: www​.psqh.com/julsep04/pextonyoung.html.
  114. Salvador A, Davies B, Fung KFK, et al. Program evaluation of hospital-based antenatal home care for high-risk women. Hosp Q. 2003;6(3):67–73. [PubMed: 12846147]
  115. Apkon M, Leonard J, Probst L, et al. Design of a safer approach to intravenous drug infusions: failure mode and effects analysis. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:265–71. [PMC free article: PMC1743853] [PubMed: 15289629]
  116. Kim GR, Chen AR, Arceci RJ, et al. Computerized order entry and failure modes and effects analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:495–8. [PubMed: 16651491]
  117. Horner JK, Hanson LC, Wood D, et al. Using quality improvement to address pain management practices in nursing homes. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30(3):271–7. [PubMed: 16183011]
  118. van Tiel FH, Elenbaas TW, Voskuilen BM, et al. Plan-do-study-act cycles as an instrument for improvement of compliance with infection control measures in care of patients after cardiothoracic surgery. J Hosp Infect. 2006;62:64–70. [PubMed: 16309783]
  119. Dodds S, Chamberlain C, Williamson GR, et al. Modernising chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admissions to improve patient care: local outcomes from implementing the Ideal Design of Emergency Access project. Accid Emerg Nurs. 2006 Jul;14(3):141–7. [PubMed: 16762552]
  120. Warburton RN, Parke B, Church W, et al. Identification of seniors at risk: process evaluation of a screening and referral program for patients aged > 75 in a community hospital emergency department. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2004;17(6):339–48. [PubMed: 15552389]
  121. Nowinski CV, Mullner RM. Patient safety: solutions in managed care organizations? Q Manage Health Care. 2006;15(3):130–6. [PubMed: 16849984]
  122. Wojciechowski E, Cichowski K. A case review: designing a new patient education system. The Internet J Adv Nurs Practice. 2007;8(2)
  123. Gering J, Schmitt B, Coe A, et al. Taking a patient safety approach to an integration of two hospitals. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(5):258–66. [PubMed: 15960016]
  124. Day S, Dalto J, Fox J, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis as a performance improvement tool in trauma. J Trauma Nurs. 2006;13(3):111–7. [PubMed: 17052091]
  125. Johnson T, Currie G, Keill P, et al. New York-Presbyterian hospital: translating innovation into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(10):554–60. [PubMed: 16294667]
  126. Aldarrab A. Application of lean Six Sigma for patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the Hamilton Health Sciences experience. Healthc Q. 2006;9(1):56–60. [PubMed: 16548435]

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *