- John Øvretveit, director of research (jovret@aol.com)a,
- David Gustafson, Robert Ratner professor of industrial engineering and preventive medicineb
- a Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm Sweden S-40242
- b University of Wisconsin, 610 Walnut Street, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI 53705, USA
- Correspondence to: J Øvretveit
- Accepted 6 February 2003
This is the first of three articles on research to improve the quality of health care
Health resources that could be used for clinical care are increasingly being devoted to large scale programmes to improve the quality of health care. Examples include national quality initiatives, hospital programmes, and quality accreditation, assessment, and review processes. However, little research has been done into their effectiveness or the conditions needed to implement quality programmes successfully. This is partly because the programmes are difficult to evaluate: they change over time, are applied to changing organisations, and need to be assessed from different perspectives. However, research can produce valid and useful knowledge about how to make such programmes work. We describe what research has shown us so far and highlight how better information can be obtained.
Summary points
Quality programmes are large scale interventions to improve health care
Little research is available to show if they work or are cost effective
Such research is difficult because the programmes involve dynamic organisations and change over time
Research can identify the factors needed for successful implementation
What is a quality programme?
Quality programmes are planned activities carried out by an organisation or health system to prove and improve the quality of health care. The programmes cover a range of interventions that are more complex than a project carried out by a single team (box 1).
Use of quality programmes is increasing worldwide. One recent study noted 11 different types of quality programmes in the NHS over three years.1 Many countries are embarking on accreditation programmes without any evidence that they are the best use of resources for improving quality and …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: How much of a social media profile can doctors have?
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Is it unethical for doctors to encourage healthy adults to donate a kidney to a stranger? No
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Report predicts 20 million AIDS orphans in Africa by 2010
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Darwin’s illness revisited
Published 13 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (6 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012