3.8 Article

An introduction to quality improvement

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL UROLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/20514158221075405

Keywords

Quality Improvement; healthcare quality; education; audit; patient safety

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the past 30 years, there has been a significant focus on quality in international healthcare. This is due to the recognition of variations in patient outcomes caused by inconsistent implementation of evidence-based actions during patient care. Healthcare professionals have shown a growing interest in utilizing knowledge and techniques from outside the medical field to improve patient care standards. This article introduces Quality Improvement methodology and concepts to Urology departments in the UK, providing an overview of key principles and organizational support for QI work.
The concept of quality has moved to the top of the international healthcare agenda in the past 30 years. This has been driven by a growing awareness of the scale of variation in patient outcomes, influenced by both the paucity of and consistency in implementation of evidence-based actions or interventions performed during the delivery of patient care. Concurrently there has been growing interest on the part of healthcare professionals to use a wider range of knowledge and available techniques, from outside of medicine, to continuously improve standards of safe and effective patient care. This is the first in a series of three articles introducing Quality Improvement (QI) methodology and supporting concepts to multidisciplinary teams working in Urology departments in the United Kingdom. We start, in this article, by providing an overview of key QI principles and their industrial roots; we position QI in the context of other approaches to improvement, such as audit, and we outline the key organisations and infrastructure supporting QI work on the ground.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available