Does a healthy health care workplace produce higher-quality care?

BACKGROUND: The multiagency Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC) coordinates activities and plans for quality measurement and improvement across all the U.S. federal agencies involved in health care. One of its working groups focuses on the health care workforce and ways to improve the quality of care that it provides. In October 1999 four government agencies, under the aegis of the QuIC, convened a conference to examine how health care workplace quality influences the quality of care. A healthy workplace is one in which workers will be able to deliver higher-quality care and in which worker health and patients' high-quality care are mutually supportive. In October 2000 a follow-up conference was held to focus on a specific aspect of health care quality-patient safety. WHAT WE STILL NEED TO KNOW: Although enough is known to justify some initiatives to improve the quality of the health care workplace, participants in both meetings agreed that the evidence to prove these associations is weak and that there has been too little research to evaluate the impact of interventions intended to improve quality through improvements in the health care workplace. New evidence-based information is needed to test the theory of the nature of the relationship between working conditions and care quality. CONCLUSION: The tradition of evidence-based decision making needs to be applied to health care management as it has in medicine and nursing, to show how staffing, environment, organization, and culture can each can affect the quality of care.

Federal efforts to improve quality of care: the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC).

FORMATION OF THE QUIC: The Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC) was established in 1998 to enable the participating federal agencies to coordinate their activities to study, measure, and improve the quality of care delivered by federal health programs; provide people with information to help them in making more informed choices about their care; and develop the research base and infrastructure needed to improve the health care system, including knowledgeable and empowered workers, well-designed systems of care, and useful information systems. STUDY, MEASURE, AND IMPROVE CARE: The QuIC's initial efforts to improve the care delivered in federal health care programs have focused on diabetes, depression, and the effect of working conditions on quality of care. More recently, patient safety efforts are under way to establish a coordinating center that will enable those who are testing methods of reducing errors to share information across their projects and with experts in error reduction. DEVELOP A RESEARCH BASE AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The QuIC has coordinated efforts in credentialing, information on measures of quality, a taxonomy of quality improvement methods, and errors data collection. PROVIDE INFORMATION TO AMERICANS ABOUT HEALTH CARE QUALITY: The QuIC agencies are developing products that will enhance their ability to communicate with the American people about their health care choices: improved gateways for consumer information available from federal agencies, a glossary of commonly used terms, and guidance for producing report cards on quality of care. MOVING THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AGENDA FORWARD: Federal efforts to improve quality of care are moving forward in a more integrated fashion on a wide number of fronts.

Transforming insurance coverage into quality health care: voltage drops from potential to delivered quality.

Although the US health care system is often touted as one of the best in the world, disparities exist in quality of care received by different populations, in different regions, and across different institutions and clinicians. Initiatives to provide access to health insurance have been a major policy tool to ensure that Americans receive high-quality health care. However, availability of insurance coverage does not automatically lead to high-quality care. This article explores points of vulnerability in the US health care system at which the potential to achieve high-quality care can be lost: (1) access to insurance coverage; (2) enrollment in available insurance plans; (3) access to covered services, clinicians, and health care institutions; (4) choice of plans, clinicians, and health care institutions; (5) access to a consistent source of primary care; (6) access to referral services; and (7) delivery of high-quality health care services. Ensuring high-quality health care requires that each of these "voltage drops" be recognized and addressed. JAMA. 2000;284:2100-2107.

Continuing education meets the learning organization: the challenge of a systems approach to patient safety.

Since the release of the report of the Institute of Medicine on medical errors and patient safety in November 1999, health policy makers and health care leaders in several nations have sought solutions that will improve the safety of health care. This attention to patient safety has high-lighted the importance of a learning approach and a systems approach to quality measurement and improvement. Balanced with the need for public disclosure of performance, confidential reporting with feedback is one of the prime ways that nations such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have approached this challenge. In the United States, the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force has convened federal agencies that are involved in health care quality improvement for a coordinated initiative. Based on an investment in a strong research foundation in health care quality measurement and improvement, there are eight key lessons for continuing education if it is to parlay the interest in patient safety into enhanced continuing education and quality improvement in learning health care systems. The themes for these lessons are (1) informatics for information, (2) guidelines as learning tools, (3) learning from opinion leaders, (4) learning from the patient, (5) decision support systems, (6) the team learning together, (7) learning organizations, and (8) just-in-time and point-of-care delivery.

Needs and challenges for health services research at academic health centers.

What are the institutional strategies used by academic health centers and other academic institutions to support and maintain the infrastructure that promotes health services research? Using the findings from interviews conducted in late 1998 with health services researchers at ten health services research centers of several types and from several geographic areas, and with the directors of ten health services research training centers, the authors address this key issue by examining four central infrastructure needs and challenges for health services research: (1) organizing core institutional resources (most centers received some level of core financial support from their parent organizations); (2) supporting career development of individual researchers (the more competitive health care system may diminish the ability of academic health centers and other institutions to give such support, but certain opportunities were noted); (3) supporting and enhancing training in health services research (such support comes from many different disciplines and organizations; the typical career path is in academic settings); and (4) establishing and supporting research partnerships (there are growing opportunities for such alliances). The authors reach a number of conclusions from their study, including the fact that there are a wide variety of models of successful health services research centers, with very different missions, organizational and interdisciplinary configurations, research and policy objectives, and collaborative relationships. Additional studies are needed to further specify those infrastructure elements that foster effective and productive health services research in academic health centers and other university settings.

Health care trends, Part I. The promise and perils of evidence-based medicine ... panel discussion.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that there are wide variations in the way physicians manage similar patients. This suggests that an evidence-based approach could lead to better outcomes with less cost. But practicing evidence-based medicine requires new skills, such as using computerized databases and applying the rules of evidence to primary and integrative studies in the medical literature. The progress of evidence-based medicine will depend in large measure on how quickly these new skills can be developed and integrated into the practice environment. Here's how six experts see the promise and the perils of evidence-based medicine, now and in the new millennium. Part 2 of the panel discussion will explore the new provider team, which includes nurses and, more recently, pharmacists, who are collaborating with physicians to provide disease management and drugs therapy management services.