Improving quality in health care is one of the essential tasks that should be pursued in any medical institution. The quality of hospital services depends on external factors, such as industrial manufacturing processes (Hall & Roussel, 2017). However, doctors themselves can also actively influence this factor by holding various kinds of meetings and meetings. However, to ensure the effectiveness of such gatherings, formal training in the use of such a format is necessary, as incorrect data collection can become an obstacle to the provision of services (Gleeson et al., 2016). It is required to show understanding and restraint, following the precepts of Solomon: “Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you” (Proverbs 2:11). As part of such training, it is necessary to participate in such meetings or study their results, which became my task.
As part of this assignment, I studied a report from a meeting of health professionals who are part of the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. A distinctive feature of this meeting, first of all, was the precise structure of the event, sustained in accordance with the schedule. Many topics were discussed throughout the conference, including reviewing the previous meeting and making adjustments to current programs. The issue of quality can be considered from a wide variety of perspectives; however, in general, six main aspects can be distinguished: safety, effectiveness, patient orientation, timeliness, efficiency, and fairness (Foley & Vale, 2017). During this meeting, most of these directions were reflected. An existing quality improvement project has been reorganized and split into several distinct units, such as the Complex Case Management Program, created specifically to appeal to specific people and flexibly reallocate resources.
While analyzing the report of the first of my classmates, I want to point out a few points that relate to quality improvement tactics. While medicine is often an area that requires an individualized approach to the patient, it still needs to be coupled with science to measure progress. It is necessary to correlate the workflow with the existing scientific processes continuously. As Solomon said, “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates correction is stupid” (Proverbs 12: 1). Besides, it is necessary to draw on the experience of others, since working together to improve quality is more effective (Wells et al., 2017). Finally, for full and influential work, it is necessary not to forget about the importance of having a leader in the team. Only if there is a central figure who will rally the team around him, point out mistakes in work and provide assistance, is it possible to qualitatively improve the conditions for the provision of health care (Singer, Benzer & Hamdan, 2015). Thus, it is necessary not only to apply a scientific approach and self-education but also to be able to accept indications of your mistakes.
A post from my second classmate emphasizes the classic structure of quality improvement projects. The approach to this event at the California Health Care Foundation and the organization discussed above is the same, which suggests the importance of having a clear meeting structure. Besides, comparing different meetings allows you to identify effective and successful projects, which can then be implemented in your events (Brandrud et al., 2017). Research shows that collaborative coordination, combined with data analysis, can significantly improve service delivery (Cantiello et al., 2016). Organizational issues such as the start time of the discussion, a clear agenda, and strict adherence to timings allow us to do the work as efficiently as possible. The focus of this meeting on efficiency indicates the desire of this organization to optimize its processes. “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity” (Proverbs 11: 3). This principle should be used as the basis for successful teamwork and implementation of quality improvement practices.
References
Brandrud, A. S., Nyen, B., Hjortdahl, P., Sandvik, L., Helljesen Haldorsen, G. S., Bergli, M., Nelson, E. C., & Bretthauer, M. (2017). Domains associated with successful quality improvement in healthcare – a nationwide case study. BMC Health Services Research, 17(1).
Cantiello, J., Kitsantas, P., Moncada, S., & Abdul, S. (2016). The evolution of quality improvement in healthcare: patient-centered care and health information technology applications. J Hosp Admin, 5, 62-8.
Foley, T. J., & Vale, L. (2017). What role for learning health systems in quality improvement within healthcare providers?. Learning Health Systems, 1(4), e10025.
Gleeson, H., Calderon, A., Swami, V., Deighton, J., Wolpert, M., & Edbrooke-Childs, J. (2016). Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings. BMJ Open, 6(8).
Hall, H. R., & Roussel, L. (2017). Evidence-based practice: An integrative approach to research, administration, and practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Singer, S. J., Benzer, J. K., & Hamdan, S. U. (2015). Improving health care quality and safety: the role of collective learning. US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health.
Wells, S., Tamir, O., Gray, J., Naidoo, D., Bekhit, M., & Goldmann, D. (2017). Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety, 27(3), 226–240.