Practical guide for improving performance.

Patrice L Spath

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15116523

Practical guide for improving performance.

Patrice L Spath

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Research has established that health care is not error free. The question facing perioperative units, as well as all health care services, is how to minimize the human factors that impact quality and safety. This two-part series on performance improvement in perioperative services was intended to help answer this question. Achieving performance excellence starts with a supportive work culture. The human issues of teamwork, communication, and leadership are crucial to achieving performance excellence. Next, perioperative caregivers must accept that all people make mistakes so systems and processes can be designed to be more "forgiving" of errors. Last, a planned and systematic approach must be used to measure, analyze, and improve performance. Successful implementation of performance improvement calls for strong partnerships between physicians, managers, and staff members. Performance excellence requires that everyone work together to ensure that perioperative care is safe, effective, appropriate, customer focused, and efficient.

Explore related subjects

Efficiency, Organizational Guidelines as Topic Models, Organizational Planning Techniques Total Quality Management United States Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Patrice L Spath. 2004. Practical guide for improving performance.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15116523/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

Settings, systems and organization development: the Healthy Living and Working Model.

This paper highlights the importance of understanding management theories to development of the settings approach to health promotion. It then provides an overview of two areas of especial pertinence: organization development and systems thinking. This is followed by the articulation of the Healthy Living and Working Model, which is proposed as a mechanism for applying the principles of the settings approach in practice within organizations. The paper concludes by pointing to future challenges in developing this Model and reiterating that facilitating improvement at the organizational level should be the defining characteristic of the settings approach to health promotion.

Efficiency, Organizational↗

PubMed2005

[Allocating and scheduling operating room time].

During the past decade many scientific advances have been made concerning the development of methodologies to maximize efficiency of surgical facilities through allocating and scheduling of operating rooms. In this article such a methodology is described. Using the analysis of historical data of surgical activity in a facility, future demand is predicted and planned. Part of the methodology includes principles and rules needed for the daily organization and operative management of surgical facilities. They are also derived from the same science and therefore the basis for rational and structured decision making. Medical aspects such as patient safety and free choice of day for surgery have higher priority than the economic goal of maximizing operating room efficiency.

Efficiency, Organizational↗

PubMed2005

Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way?

OBJECTIVE: The following paper examines the issue of whether the current system for ethics review of multisite health services research protocols is adequate, or whether there exist alternative methods that should be considered. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: (1) Investigators at different sites in a multisite project often have very different experiences with respect to the requirements and requests of the review board. Other problems include the waste of time and resources spent on document preparation for review boards, and delays in the commencement of research activities. (2) There are several possible reasons why there is variability in ethics review. These include the absence of standardized forms, differences in the background and experiences of board members, the influence of institutional or professional culture, and regional thinking. (3) Given the limited benefits derived from the variability in recommendations of multiple boards and the numerous problems encountered in seeking ethics approval from multiple boards suggest that some sort of reform is in order. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing number of multisite, health services research studies calls for a centralized system of ethics review. The local review model is simply not conducive to multisite studies, and jeopardizes the integrity of the research process. Centralized multisite review boards, together with standardized documents and procedure, electronic access to documentation, and training for board members are all possible solutions. Changes to the current system are necessary not only to facilitate the conduct of multisite research, but also to preserve the integrity of the ethics approval process in general.

Efficiency, Organizational↗