Quality improvement strategies and tools: A comparative analysis between Italy and the United States

Author:

Villa Stefano12,Restuccia Joseph D3,Anessi-Pessina Eugenio24,Rizzo Marco Giovanni12,Cohen Alan B3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Management, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy

2. CERISMAS (Research Centre in Healthcare Management), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

3. Questrom School of Business, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

4. Department of Management, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy

Abstract

Italian and American hospitals, in two different periods, have been urged by external circumstances to extensively redesign their quality improvement strategies. This paper, through the use of a survey administered to chief quality officers in both countries, aims to identify commonalities and differences between the two systems and to understand which approaches are effective in improving quality of care. In both countries chief quality officers report quality improvement has become a strategic priority, clinical governance approaches, and tools—such as disease-specific quality improvement projects and clinical pathways—are commonly used, and there is widespread awareness that clinical decision making must be supported by protocols and guidelines. Furthermore, the study clearly outlines the critical importance of adopting a system-wide approach to quality improvement. To this extent Italy seems lagging behind compared to US in fact: (i) responsibilities for different dimensions of quality are spread across different organizational units; (ii) quality improvement strategies do not typically involve administrative staff; and (iii) quality performance measures are not disseminated widely within the organization but are reported primarily to top management. On the other hand, in Italy chief quality officers perceive that the typical hospital organizational structure, which is based on clinical directories, allows better coordination between clinical specialties than in the United States. In both countries, the results of the study show that it is not the single methodology/model that makes the difference but how the different quality improvement strategies and tools interact to each other and how they are coherently embedded with the overall organizational strategy.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3