Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S M Shortell

Publications and source records attributed to S M Shortell.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement on clinical practice: what it will take to accelerate progress.

The literature on continuous quality improvement (CQI) has produced some evidence, based on nonrandomized studies, that its clinical application can improve outcomes of care while reducing costs. Its effectiveness is enhanced by a nucleus of physician involvement, individual practitioner feedback, and a supportive organizational culture. The few randomized studies, however, suggest no impact of CQI on clinical outcomes and no evidence to date of organization-wide improvement in clinical performance. Further, most studies address misuse issues and avoid examining overuse or underuse of services. The clinical application of CQI is more likely to have a pervasive impact when it takes place within a supportive regulatory and competitive environment, when it is aligned with financial incentives, and when it is under the direction of an organizational leadership that is committed to integrating all aspects of the work.

Ambulatory Care↗

Adverse outcomes and variations in organization of care delivery.

OBJECTIVES: This article evaluates the state of the science with respect to morbidity, mortality, and adverse effects as outcomes indicative of variations in organizational variables in care delivery systems. METHODS: Eighty-one research papers research examining relations among organizational structures or processes and mortality/adverse effects were reviewed, assembled from electronic and manual searches of the biomedical and health services research literature. RESULTS: Most research relating mortality and other adverse outcomes to organizational variables has been conducted in acute care hospitals since 1990, with these outcome indicators linked more frequently to organizational structures than to organizational or clinical processes. There is support in some studies, but not in others, that nursing surveillance, quality of working environment, and quality of interaction with other professionals distinguish hospitals with lower mortality and complications from those with higher rates of these adverse effects. Increasing sophistication of risk adjustment methods suggests that variations in mortality and complications are influenced by patient variables more than by organizational variables. Adverse events may be a more sensitive marker of differences in organizational quality in acute care hospitals and long-term care. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the acute care studies are not conclusive regarding the extent to which the organizational features of care delivery systems positively influence such bottom-line outcomes as mortality. As severity-adjustment methods become more refined for hospital patients, many of the small differences currently seen in mortality and complications may disappear. However, given that adverse events appear more closely related to organizational factors than in mortality, researchers need to refine and better define such events that are logically related to the coordinative organizational processes among caregivers. Finally, researchers need to go much beyond mortality, morbidity, and adverse events in evaluating the linkage between the organization of care and outcomes.

Delivery of Health Care↗

Best practices in managing organized delivery systems.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a large public-sector healthcare delivery system, is following the lead of the private sector in seeking a more integrated approach to providing patient care. The belief is that new entities known as organized delivery systems (ODSs) will produce better, more cost-effective care. Toward this end, VA has reorganized its facilities into 22 networks. The purpose of this paper is to provide VA policymakers and managers with information about building and managing an integrated delivery system for the nation's veterans based on findings from the Health Systems Integration Study (HSIS).

Community Networks↗

Shaping the future.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Diffusion of Innovation↗

Promoting clinical involvement in hospital quality improvement efforts: the effects of top management, board, and physician leadership.

STUDY QUESTION: An examination of the effects of top management, board, and physician leadership for quality on the extent of clinical involvement in hospital CQI/TQM efforts. DATA SOURCES: A sample of 2,193 acute care community hospitals, created by merging data from a 1989 national survey on hospital governance and a 1993 national survey on hospital quality improvement efforts. STUDY DESIGN: Hypotheses were tested using Heckman's two-stage modeling approach. Four dimensions of clinical involvement in CQI/TQM were examined: physician participation in formal QI training, physician participation in QI teams, clinical departments with formally organized QA/QI project teams, and clinical conditions and procedures for which quality of care data are used by formally organized QA/QI project teams. Leadership measures included CEO involvement in CQI/TQM, board quality monitoring, board activity in quality improvement, active-staff physician involvement in governance, and physician-at-large involvement in governance. Relevant control variables were included in the analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Measures of top management leadership for quality and board leadership for quality showed significant, positive relationships with measures of clinical involvement in CQI/TQM. Active-staff physician involvement in governance showed positive, significant relationships with clinical involvement measures, while physician-at-large involvement in governance showed significant, negative relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Study results suggest that leadership from the top promotes clinical involvement in CQI/TQM. Further, results indicate that leadership for quality in healthcare settings may issue from several sources, including managers, boards, and physician leaders.

Chief Executive Officers, Hospital↗

Remaking health care in America.

Academic medical centers, vulnerable populations, rural health. Each represents the fragmentation of the current health care delivery system. Not surprisingly, the challenge of achieving cost-effective integrated delivery raises complex issues for each. These issues are explored in Remaking Health Care in America, based on research by Stephen Shortell, Ph.D., and his colleagues at Northwestern University, in partnership with KPMG's National Health Care & Life Sciences practice and 11 integrated health care systems. Hospitals & Health Networks presents an exclusive preview of the book.

Academic Medical Centers↗

Implementation of total quality management: conventional wisdom versus reality.

Hospitals nationwide are beginning to implement continuous quality improvement (CQI) (Barsness et al. 1993; Kosta 1992). In large part this is due to the belief that the implementation of CQI will lead to higher quality patient care, improved patient satisfaction, better employee morale, and lower cost service delivery. However, to date there have been few empirical studies of CQI implementation efforts in healthcare (Shortell et al. 1994).

Chief Executive Officers, Hospital↗

Integrated health systems: promise and performance.

Today's ¿virtually¿ and vertically integrated health systems increasingly are much better positioned than the multihospital systems of the 1980s to respond to the healthcare challenges of the twenty-first century. The authors argue that the control of the health services ¿value chain¿ will devolve naturally to those market players who have the comparative advantage in coordinating the flows of information, human, and physical resources along the continuum of services required to improve and maintain the health of populations. Available evidence does not render a clear verdict on whether superior performance is generated by the virtual integration of strategic alliances and affiliations or the vertical integration represented by unified single ownership of all system components. While inertia, acute care-based ¿mental models,¿ weak incentives, and insufficiently developed information systems represent important barriers to the creation and sustainability of integrated systems, the authors argue that system evolution is occurring and offers promise of enhanced efficiency and patient benefit. However, the full potential of these systems will only be realized as they accept explicit accountability for meeting the health needs of their local communities. The transition from ¿covered lives¿ to accountability for the community population is crucial.

Community Health Planning↗

The new organization of the health care delivery system.

The U.S. health care system is restructuring at a dizzying pace. In many parts of the country, managed care has moved into third-generation models emphasizing capitated payment for enrolled lives and, in the process, turning most providers and institutions into cost centers to be managed rather than generators of revenue. While the full impact of the new managed care models remains to be seen, most evidence to date suggests that it tends to reduce inpatient use, may be associated with greater use of physician services and preventive care, and appears to result in no net differences either positive or negative with regard to quality or outcomes of care in comparison with fee-for-service plans. Some patients, however, tend to be somewhat less satisfied with scheduling of appointments and the amount of time spent with providers. There is no persuasive evidence that managed care lowers the rate of growth in overall health care costs within a given market. Further, managed care performance varies considerably across the country, and the factors influencing managed care performance are not well understood. Organized delivery systems are a somewhat more recent phenomenon representing various forms of ownership and strategic alliances among hospitals, physicians, and insurers designed to provide more cost-effective care to defined populations by achieving desired levels of functional, physician-system, and clinical integration. Early evidence suggests that organized delivery systems that are more integrated have the potential to provide more accessible coordinated care across the continuum, and appear to be associated with higher levels of inpatient productivity, greater total system revenue, greater total system cash flow, and greater total system operating margin than less integrated delivery forms. Some key success factors for developing organized delivery systems have been identified. Important roles are played by organizational culture, information systems, internal incentives, total quality management, physician leadership, and the growth of group practices. This chapter describes the growth and evolution of managed care and organized delivery systems, the research evidence regarding managed care and organized delivery systems, and the likely future organization of the health system in light of recent trends and evidence. It also highlights some of the more important public policy implications of the new health care infrastructure.

Cost Control↗