Annals of Internal Medicine · 2004 · 285 citations · 14 references
Health ProfessionsHealth Services AdministrationQuality ManagementEvidence-based PracticeHealthcare Quality ImprovementQuality ImprovementContinuous Quality ImprovementEvidence-based Practice ImplementationHealth Care QualityPerformance ImprovementQuality MeasurementQuality Of CareCollaborative Practice ModelsHealth Care Process ImprovementHealth Care Quality MeasurementMulti-objective EvaluationObjective EvaluationPractice ImprovementQuality Improvement MethodologyQuality Of Care Evaluation
Intensive efforts are underway to improve health care quality and safety worldwide, often using quality improvement collaboratives, but their widespread acceptance rests on shared beliefs and anecdotal evidence rather than solid data. The study aims to foster a rigorous, objective evaluation of the collaborative method and build a valid, useful evidence base. This requires better conceptualization of quality problems and improvement processes, and coordinated efforts among researchers, editors, and funders to produce relevant, comprehensive, cumulative evaluations.
Intensive efforts are under way to improve health care quality and safety throughout the United States and abroad. Many of these efforts use the quality improvement collaborative method, an approach emphasizing collaborative learning and exchange of insights and support among a set of health care organizations. Unfortunately, the widespread acceptance and reliance on this approach are based not on solid evidence but on shared beliefs and anecdotal affirmations that may overstate the actual effectiveness of the method. More effective use of the collaborative method will require a commitment by users, researchers, and other stakeholders to rigorous, objective evaluation and the creation of a valid, useful knowledge and evidence base. Development of this evidence base will require improved conceptions of the nature of quality problems, quality improvement processes, and the types of research needed to elucidate these processes. Researchers, journal editors, and funding agencies must also cooperate to ensure that published evaluations are relevant, comprehensive, and cumulative.
14