3.8 Article

Improving Patient Satisfaction with Pain Management Using Six Sigma Tools

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S1553-7250(09)35048-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patient satisfaction as a direct and public measure of quality of care is changing the way hospitals address quality improvement. The feasibility of using the Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) methodology to improve patient satisfaction as it relates to pain management was evaluated. Methods: This project used the DMAIC methodology to improve patients' overall satisfaction with pain management on two inpatient units in an urban academic medical center. Pre-and postintervention patient surveys were conducted. The DMAIC methodology provided a data-driven structure to determine the optimal improvement strategies, as well as a long-term plan for maintaining any improvements. In addition, the Change Acceleration Process (CAP) was used throughout the project's various DMAIC stages to further the work of the team by creating a shared need to meet the objectives of the project. Results: Overall satisfaction with pain management excellent ratings increased from 37% to 54%. Both units surpassed the goal of at least 50% of responses in the excellent category. Several key drivers of satisfaction with pain management were uncovered in the Analyze phase of the project, and each saw rating increases from the pre-intervention to postintervention surveys. Ongoing monitoring by the hospital inpatient satisfaction survey showed that the pain satisfaction score improved in subsequent quarters as compared with the pre-intervention period. Discussion: The Six Sigma DMAIC methodology can be used successfully to improve patient satisfaction. The project led to measurable improvements in patient satisfaction with pain management, which have endured past the duration of the Six Sigma project. The Control phase of DMAIC allows the improvements to be incorporated into daily operations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据