Details distribution, posting, or copying of this pdf is st

DETAILS
Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly
prohibited without written permission of the National
Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials
in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of
Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or
register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific
reports
– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to
your interests
– Special offers and discounts
GET THIS BOOK

FIND RELATED TITLES
This PDF is available at SHARE
CONTRIBUTORS
SUGGESTED CITATION
http://nap.edu/10027
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st
Century (2001)
360 pages | 6 x 9 | HARDBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-07280-9 | DOI 10.17226/10027
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America; Institute of
Medicine
Institute of Medicine 2001. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New
Health System for
the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/10027.
http://cart.nap.edu/cart/cart.cgi?list=fs&action=buy%20it&recor
d_id=10027&isbn=978-0-309-07280-9&quantity=1
http://nap.edu/10027
http://www.nap.edu/related.php?record_id=10027
http://www.nap.edu/reprint_permission.html
http://nap.edu
http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/facebook/offer?pc
o=tbxnj-1.0&url=http://www.nap.edu/10027&pubid=napdigops
http://www.nap.edu/share.php?type=twitter&record_id=10027&t

itle=Crossing+the+Quality+Chasm%3A+A+New+Health+Syste
m+for+the+21st+Century
http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/linkedin/offer?pc
o=tbxnj-1.0&url=http://www.nap.edu/10027&pubid=napdigops
mailto:?subject=null&body=http://nap.edu/10027
Century
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
111
5
Building Organizational
Supports for Change
Between front-line clinical care teams and the health care
environment lies
an array of health care organizations, including hospitals,
managed care organi-
zations, medical groups, multispeciality clinics, integrated
delivery systems, and
others. Leaders of today’s health care organizations face a
daunting challenge in
redesigning the organization and delivery of care to meet the
aims set forth in this
report. They face pressures from employees and medical staff,
as well as from
the local community, including residents, business and service
organizations,
regulators, and other agencies. It is difficult enough to balance
the needs of those
many constituencies under ordinary circumstances. It is

especially difficult when
one is trying to change routine processes and procedures to alter
how people
conduct their everyday work, individually and collectively.
This chapter describes a general process of organizational
development and
then offers a set of tools and techniques, drawing heavily from
engineering con-
cepts, as a starting point for identifying how organizations
might redesign care.
Chapter 3 offered a set of rules that would redesign the nature
of interactions
between a clinician and a patient to improve the quality of care.
This chapter
describes how organizations can redesign care to systematically
improve the
quality of care for patients. This is not an exhaustive list of
possible approaches,
but a sampling of techniques used in other fields that might
have applicability in
health care. The broad areas discussed in this chapter apply to
all health care
organizations; the specific tools and techniques used would
need to be adapted to
an organization’s local environment and patients.
http://www.nap.edu/10027
Century
112 CROSSING THE QUALITY CHASM

Recommendation 7: The Agency for Healthcare Research and
Qual-
ity and private foundations should convene a series of
workshops
involving representatives from health care and other industries
and
the research community to identify, adapt, and implement state-
of-
the-art approaches to addressing the following challenges:
• Redesign of care processes based on best practices
• Use of information technologies to improve access to clinical
information and support clinical decision making
• Knowledge and skills management
• Development of effective teams
• Coordination of care across patient conditions, services, and
settings over time
• Incorporation of performance and outcome measurements for
improvement and accountability
To achieve the six aims identified in Chapter 2, board members,
chief execu-
tive officers, chief information officers, chief financial officers,
and clinical man-
agers of all types of health care organizations will need to take
steps to redesign
care processes. The recommended series of workshops is
intended to serve
multiple purposes: (1) to help communicate the
recommendations and findings
of this report and engage leaders and managers of health care
organizations in the

pursuit of the aims, (2) to provide knowledge and tools that will
be helpful to
these individuals, and (3) to encourage the development of
formal and informal
networks of individuals involved in innovation and
improvement.
STAGES OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The design of health care organizations can be conceptualized
as progressing
through three stages of development to a final stage that
embodies the committee’s
vision for the 21st-century health care system, as represented by
the six aims set
forth in Chapter 2 (see Table 5-1). Although settings and
practices vary, the
committee believes much of the health sector has been working
at Stages 2 and 3
over the last decade or more. As knowledge and technologies
continue to ad-
vance and the complexity of care delivery grows, the evolution
to Stage 4 will
require that Stage 3 organizations accelerate efforts to redesign
their approaches
to interacting with patients, organizing services, providing
training, and utilizing
the health care workforce.
Stage 1
Stage 1 is characterized by a highly fragmented delivery
system, with physi-
cians, hospitals, and other health care organizations functioning
autonomously.

Century
BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR CHANGE
113
The scope of practice for many physicians is very broad.
Patients rely on physi-
cian training, experience, and good intentions for guidance.
Individual clinicians
do their best to stay abreast of the literature and rely on their
own practice
experience to make the best decisions for their patients.
Journals, conferences,
and informal consultation with peers are the usual means of
staying current.
Information technology tools are almost entirely absent.
Norman (1988) has
characterized this approach to work as based on “knowledge in
the head,” with
heavy dependence on learning and memory. The patient’s role
tends to be pas-
sive, with care being organized for the benefit of the
professional and/or institu-
tion.
Stage 2
Stage 2 is characterized by the formation of well-defined
referral networks,
greater use of informal mechanisms to increase patient

involvement in clinical
decision making, and the formation of loosely structured
multidisciplinary teams.
For the most part, health care is organized around areas of
physician specializa-
tion and institutional settings. Patients have more access to
health information
through print, video, and Internet-based materials than in Stage
1, and more
formal mechanisms exist for patient input. However, these tend
to be generic
mechanisms, such as consent forms and satisfaction surveys.
Patients have infor-
mal mechanisms for input on their care.
Most health data are paper based. Little patient information is
shared among
settings or practices; the result is often gaps, redundancy of
data gathering, and a
lack of relevant information. In this stage, institutions and
specialty groups, for
example, try to help practitioners apply science to practice by
developing tools
for knowledge management, such as practice guidelines.
Stage 3
In Stage 3, care is still organized in a way that is oriented to the
interests of
professionals and institutions, but there is some movement
toward a patient-
centered system and recognition that individual patients differ
in their prefer-
ences and needs. Team practice is common, but changes in
roles are often slowed
or stymied by institutional, labor, and financial structures, as

well as by law and
custom. Some training for team practice occurs, but that
training is typically
fragmented and isolated by health discipline, such as medicine,
nursing, or physi-
cal therapy.
Clinicians and managers recognize the increasing complexity of
health care
and the opportunities presented by information technology.
Some real-time deci-
sion support tools are available, but information technology
capability is modest,
and stand-alone applications are the rule. Computer-based
applications for labo-
ratory data, ordering of medications, and records of patient
encounters typically
Century
114
T
A
B
L
E
5

-1
S
ta
g
es
o
f
E
v
o
lu
ti
o
n
o
f
th
e
D
es
ig
n
o
f

H
ea
lt
h
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
s
S
ta
g
e
T
h
e
P
at
ie
n
t

E
x
p
er
ie
n
ce
K
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
an
d
S
k
il
ls
M
an
ag

em
en
t
C
ar
e
D
el
iv
er
y
1
•
T
h
e
p
h
y
si
ci
an
d

et
er
m
in
es
w
h
at
i
s
in
t
h
e
•
T
h
er
e
is
h
ea
v
y

r
el
ia
n
ce
o
n
h
u
m
an
m
em
o
ry
•
In
d
iv
id
u
al
p
h

y
si
ci
an
s
cr
af
t
so
lu
ti
o
n
s
fo
r
b
es
t
in
te
re
st
o

f
th
e
p
at
ie
n
t
an
d
c
o
n
tr
o
ls
an
d
k
n
o
w
le
d

g
e
w
it
h
o
u
t
si
g
n
if
ic
an
t
re
al
-
in
d
iv
id
u
al

p
at
ie
n
ts
.
ca
re
.
T
h
e
p
at
ie
n
t’
s
ro
le
t
en
d
s

to
b
e
ti
m
e
ai
d
s
an
d
t
o
o
ls
.
I
n
fo
rm
at
io
n
p

as
si
v
e,
w
it
h
c
ar
e
b
ei
n
g
o
rg
an
iz
ed
f
o
r
th
e

te
ch
n
o
lo
g
y
i
s
al
m
o
st
e
n
ti
re
ly
a
b
se
n
t.
b

en
ef
it
o
f
th
e
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
a
n
d
/o
r
in
st
it
u
ti

o
n
.
2
•
M
em
b
er
s
o
f
th
e
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
t
ea
m

•
C
li
n
ic
ia
n
s
h
av
e
so
m
e
p
ro
to
co
ls
a
n
d
•
R

ec
o
g
n
it
io
n
o
f
th
e
v
ar
ia
b
il
it
y
i
n
t
re
at
m

en
t
in
fo
rm
al
ly
s
h
ar
e
co
n
tr
o
l
am
o
n
g
k
n
o
w

le
d
g
e
as
si
st
an
ce
a
v
ai
la
b
le
,
b
u
t
st
il
l
m
ay

l
ea
d
t
o
i
n
te
re
st
i
n
p
ro
to
co
ls
a
n
d
th
em
se
lv

es
,
b
u
t
p
h
y
si
ci
an
a
u
to
n
o
m
y
re
ly
o
n
m
em

o
ry
a
n
d
b
as
ic
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
g
u
id
el
in
es
.
p

re
d
o
m
in
at
es
.
C
ar
e
is
o
rg
an
iz
ed
f
o
r
th
e
m
an

ag
em
en
t
to
o
ls
(
jo
u
rn
al
s,
c
o
n
fe
re
n
ce
s,
•
T
ra

d
it
io
n
al
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
r
o
le
s
d
ef
in
e
b
en
ef
it

o
f
th
e
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
a
n
d
/o
r
co
n
su
lt
at
io
n
w

it
h
p
ee
rs
,
g
en
er
al
I
n
te
rn
et
w
o
rk
in
g
r
el
at
io

n
sh
ip
s.
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
.
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
s
it
es
).
V

er
y
l
it
tl
e
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
•
P
at
ie
n
ts
h
av
e
in
fo
rm

al
m
ec
h
an
is
m
s
fo
r
te
ch
n
o
lo
g
y
i
s
in
u
se
.
in

p
u
t
o
n
t
h
ei
r
ca
re
.
te
ch
n
o
lo
g
y
i
s
in
u
se

.
•
P
at
ie
n
ts
r
ec
ei
v
e
so
m
e
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
f
ro
m

cl
in
ic
ia
n
s
(g
en
er
al
ly
s
to
ck
p
ri
n
t
m
at
er
ia
l
an

d
v
er
b
al
i
n
fo
rm
at
io
n
).
Century
115
3
•
F
o
rm

al
m
ec
h
an
is
m
s
fo
r
p
at
ie
n
t
in
p
u
t
•
C
li
n
ic

ia
n
s
an
d
p
at
ie
n
ts
h
av
e
re
ad
y
a
cc
es
s
•
T
h
e

p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
t
ea
m
f
o
rm
al
ly
s
h
ar
es
ex
is
t.
to
c

li
n
ic
al
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e.
T
h
er
e
is
ro
le
s
an
d
r

es
p
o
n
si
b
il
it
ie
s
am
o
n
g
i
ts
•
C
ar
e
is
o
rg
an

iz
ed
f
o
r
th
e
b
en
ef
it
o
f
th
e
si
g
n
if
ic
an
t
re
li

an
ce
o
n
b
es
t
p
ra
ct
ic
es
,
m
em
b
er
s.
T
h
e
p
h

y
si
ci
an
a
s
re
sp
o
n
si
b
le
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
a
n
d
/o

r
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
,
b
u
t
th
er
e
g
u
id
el
in
es
,
an
d

d
is
ea
se
m
an
ag
em
en
t
le
ad
er
e
m
er
g
es
.
P
ra
ct
ic
es

r
ec
o
g
n
iz
e
th
e
is
s
o
m
e
m
o
v
em
en
t
to
w
ar
d

a
p
at
ie
n
t-
p
at
h
w
ay
s
fo
r
cl
in
ic
ia
n
s
an
d
p
at

ie
n
ts
.
n
ee
d
f
o
r
ch
an
g
in
g
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
r
o

le
s,
b
u
t
ce
n
te
re
d
s
y
st
em
.
S
o
m
e
re
al
-t
im
e

d
ec
is
io
n
su
p
p
o
rt
t
o
o
ls
a
re
ch
an
g
e
is
s
lo
w

ed
o
r
st
y
m
ie
d
b
y
av
ai
la
b
le
,
b
u
t
in
fo
rm
at
io

n
t
ec
h
n
o
lo
g
y
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
al
a
n
d
f
in
an
ci

al
s
tr
u
ct
u
re
s,
l
aw
,
ca
p
ab
il
it
y
i
s
m
o
d
es
t.

an
d
c
u
st
o
m
.
•
S
o
m
e
tr
ai
n
in
g
f
o
r
te
am
p

ra
ct
ic
e
o
cc
u
rs
.
•
A
s
m
al
l
n
u
m
b
er
o
f
p
ra

ct
ic
es
a
p
p
ly
s
y
st
em
d
es
ig
n
p
ri
n
ci
p
le
s
an
d

i
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
s
y
st
em
s
in
t
h
ei
r
d

ai
ly
w
o
rk
.
•
M
an
y
c
o
n
d
it
io
n
s
ar
e
m
an
ag
ed

t
h
ro
u
g
h
sp
ec
ia
l
ca
re
m
an
ag
em
en
t
p
ro
g
ra
m
s.

4
•
C
ar
e
p
ro
ce
ss
es
a
n
d
t
ra
n
sa
ct
io
n
s
ar
e
b

as
ed
•
T
h
e
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
t
is
r
ic
h
i
n
c
li
n
ic

al
•
T
h
e
d
el
iv
er
y
o
f
se
rv
ic
es
i
s
co
o
rd
in
at
ed

o
n
t
h
e
n
ew
r
u
le
s
se
t
fo
rt
h
i
n
C
h
ap
te
r
3

.
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
f
o
r
p
at
ie
n
ts
a
n
d
ac
ro
ss
p
ra
ct

ic
es
,
se
tt
in
g
s,
a
n
d
p
at
ie
n
t
C
ar
e
is
p
at
ie
n

t-
ce
n
te
re
d
,
w
it
h
p
at
ie
n
t
an
d
cl
in
ic
ia
n
s.
co

n
d
it
io
n
s
o
v
er
t
im
e.
I
n
fo
rm
at
io
n
fa
m
il
y
b

ei
n
g
p
ar
t
o
f
th
e
h
ea
lt
h
c
ar
e
te
am
.
•
A
u
to

m
at
ed
d
ec
is
io
n
s
u
p
p
o
rt
s
y
st
em
s
te
ch
n
o
lo

g
y
i
s
u
se
d
a
s
th
e
b
as
ic
b
u
il
d
in
g
P
at
ie
n

ts
h
av
e
ac
ce
ss
t
o
a
s
m
u
ch
in
co
rp
o
ra
ti
n
g
p
at

ie
n
t-
sp
ec
if
ic
d
at
a
ar
e
b
lo
ck
f
o
r
m
ak
in
g
s
y

st
em
s
w
o
rk
,
tr
ac
k
in
g
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
a
s
th
ey
w
is

h
t
o
h
av
e
an
d
u
se
d
a
t
th
e
p
o
in
t
o
f
p
at
ie

n
t
ca
re
.
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
,
an
d
i
n
cr
ea
si
n
g
l
ea
rn

in
g
.
o
p
p
o
rt
u
n
it
ie
s
to
e
x
er
ci
se
a
s
m
u
ch

c
o
n
tr
o
l
•
S
k
il
l
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t,
t
ra
in
in
g

,
an
d
P
ra
ct
ic
es
u
se
m
ea
su
re
s
an
d
i
n
fo
rm
at
io
n

o
v
er
t
h
ei
r
ca
re
a
s
th
ey
d
es
ir
e.
le
ad
er
sh
ip
s
u

p
p
o
rt
t
h
e
m
u
lt
id
is
ci
p
li
n
ar
y
ab
o
u
t
o
u

tc
o
m
es
a
n
d
i
n
fo
rm
at
io
n
ch
ar
ac
te
r
o
f
cl
in
ic

al
p
ra
ct
ic
e.
te
ch
n
o
lo
g
y
t
o
c
o
n
ti
n
u
al
ly
r

ef
in
e
ad
v
an
ce
d
en
g
in
ee
ri
n
g
p
ri
n
ci
p
le
s
an
d

t
o
i
m
p
ro
v
e
th
ei
r
ca
re
p
ro
ce
ss
es
.
T
h
e
h
ea

lt
h
w
o
rk
fo
rc
e
is
u
se
d
e
ff
ic
ie
n
tl
y
a
n
d
f
le

x
ib
ly
to
i
m
p
le
m
en
t
ch
an
g
e.
Century
cannot exchange data at all or are not based on common
definitions. Practice

groups—particularly those that are community based—typically
lack informa-
tion systems to make such decision support tools available at
the point of patient
care, or to integrate guidelines with information about specific
patients. Clinical
leaders recognize the need for what has been called “knowledge
in the world”
(Norman, 1988)—information that is retrievable when needed,
replaces the need
for detailed memory recall, and is continuously updated on the
basis of new
information. More organized groups rely on best practices,
guidelines, and dis-
ease management pathways for clinicians and patients, but these
are not inte-
grated with workflow.
Stage 4
Stage 4 is the health care system of the 21st century envisioned
by the
committee. This system supports continued improveme nt in the
six aims of
safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness,
efficiency, and equity.
Health care organizations in this stage have the characteristics
of other high-
performing organizations. They draw on the experiences of
other sectors and
adapt tools to the unique characteristics of the health care field.
Patients have the opportunity to exercise as much or as little
control over
treatment decisions as they choose (as long as their preferences
fall within the

boundaries of evidence-based practice). Services are
coordinated across prac-
tices, settings, and patient conditions over time using
increasingly sophisticated
information systems.
Whatever their form, health care organizations can be
characterized as “learn-
ing organizations” (Senge, 1990) that explicitly measure their
performance along
a variety of dimensions, including outcomes of care, and use
that information to
change or redesign and continually improve their work using
advanced engineer-
ing principles. They make efficient and flexible use of the
health workforce to
implement change, matching and enhancing skill levels to
enable less expensive
professionals and patients to do progressively more
sophisticated tasks (Christen-
sen et al., 2000).
The committee does not advocate any particular organizational
forms for the
21st-century health care system. The forms that emerge might
comprise corpo-
rate management and ownership structures, strategic alliances,
and other contrac-
tual arrangements (“virtual” organizations) (COR Healthcare
Resources, 2000;
Robinson and Casalino, 1996; Shortell et al., 2000a). New
information and
delivery structures might be located in a particular city or
region or might be the
basis for collaborative networks or consortia (COR Health LLC,
2000). What-

ever the organizational arrangement, it should promote
innovation and quality
improvement. Every organization should be held accountable to
its patients, the
populations it serves, and the public for its clinical and
financial performance.
Century
117
In some respects, such as economies of scale, workforce
training and deploy-
ment, and access to capital, larger organizations will have a
comparative advan-
tage. In other cases, small systems will evolve to take on
functions now per-
formed by larger organizations. The use of intranet- or
Internet-based applications
and information systems may enable the development of an
infrastructure to
accomplish certain functions. New forms might include, for
example, Web-
based knowledge servers or broker-mediated, consumer-directed
health care pur-
chasing programs.
KEY CHALLENGES FOR THE REDESIGN OF
HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATIONS

Health care services need to be organized and financed in ways
that make
sense to patients and clinicians and that foster coordination of
care and collabora-
tive work. They should be based on sound design principles and
make use of
information technologies that can integrate data for multiple
uses (Kibbe and
Bard, 1997a; Rosenstein, 1997). Whatever their form,
organizations will need to
meet six challenges, see Figure 5-1, that cut across different
health conditions,
types of care (such as preventive, acute, or chronic), and care
settings:
• redesigning care processes;
• making effective use of information technologies;
• managing clinical knowledge and skills;
• developing effective teams;
• coordinating care across patient conditions, services, and
settings over
time; and
• incorporating performance and outcome measurements for
improvement
and accountability.
The following discussion of these six challenges includes
excerpts from
interviews with clinical leaders conducted as a part of an IOM
study aimed at
identifying exemplary practices (Donaldson and Mohr, 2000).
Redesigning Care Processes

I try to help people understand that we can “work smarter.”
You can feel
rotten about how you are practicing. I tell them, “You are
right—and it’s going
to get worse.” But change is possible. We don’t need a billion-
dollar solution.
We need a billion $1 solutions. You have to create the will to
change. There’s
the will to change, then execution.—Hospital-based endoscopy
unit
Like any complex system, health care organizations require
sophisticated tools
and building blocks that allow them to function with purpose,
direction, and high
Century
reliability. Effective and reliable care processes—whether
registering patients
who come to the emergency room, ensuring complete
immunizations for chil-
dren, managing medication administration, ensuring that
accurate laboratory tests
are completed and returned to the requesting clinician, or
ensuring that discharge

from hospital to home after a disabling injury is safe and well
coordinated—can
be created only by using well-understood engineering
principles. Not only must
care processes be reliable, but they must also be focused on
creating a relation-
ship with a caregiver that meets the expectations of both the
patient and the
family. Redesign can transform the use of capital and human
resources to achieve
these ends.
Redesign may well challenge existing practices, data structures,
roles, and
management practices, and it results in continuing change. It
involves conceptu-
FIGURE 5-1 Making change possible.
CARE SYSTEM
Supportive
payment and
regulatory
environment
Organizations
that facilitate
the work of
patient-
centered teams
High performing
patient-centered
teams

Outcomes
• Safe
• Effective
• Efficient
• Personalized
• Timely
• Equitable
REDESIGN IMPERATIVES: SIX
CHALLENGES
• Redesigned care processes
• Effective use of information technologies
• Knowledge and skills management
• Development of effective teams
• Coordination of care across patient conditions, services,
and settings over time
• Use of performance and outcome measurement for
continuous quality improvement and accountability
Century
119
alizing, mapping, testing, refining, and continuing to improve
the many processes
of health care. Redesign aimed at increasing an organization’s

agility in respond-
ing to changing demand may be accomplished through a variety
of approaches,
such as simplifying, standardizing, reducing waste, and
implementing methods of
continuous flow (Bennis and Mische, 1995; Goldsmith, 1998).
Students of organizational theory have learned a great deal
through careful
examination of the work of organizations that use very complex
and often haz-
ardous technologies. The committee’s earlier report, To Err Is
Human, outlines
the achievements of several manufacturing companies and the
U.S. Navy’s air-
craft carriers in using replicable strategies to achieve great
consistency and reli-
ability (Institute of Medicine, 2000). Other world-class
businesses, notably those
that have received the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award,
have embraced many of the tenets of quality improvement
described by Deming,
Juran, and others (Anderson et al., 1994), which include the
need to improve
constantly the system of production and services. Yet few
health care organiza-
tions have developed successful models of production that
reliably deliver basic
effective services, much less today’s increasingly advanced and
complex tech-
nologies. Nor have most been able to continually assess and
meet changing
patient requirements and expectations .
Some health care organizations have dedicated considerable

energy and re-
sources to changing the way they deliver care. Although these
organizations
have recognized the need for leadership to provide the
necessary commitment to
and investment in change, they have also recognized that change
needs to come
from the bottom up as front-line health care teams recognize
opportunities for
redesigning care processes and acquire the skill to implement
those new ap-
proaches successfully (National Committee for Quality Health
Care, 1999; Wash-
ington Business Group on Health, 1998). Many other
organizations have taken
steps toward redesigning processes, but have found replication
and deployment
difficult or short-lived (Blumenthal and Kilo, 1998; Shortell et
al., 1998). The
committee recognizes these efforts and the difficulties that stem
from, among
other things, restructuring and economic pressure, misaligned
incentives, profes-
sional entrenchment, competing priorities, organizational
inertia, and lack of
adequate information systems (Shortell et al., 1998).
A growing body of literature in health care indicates that well -
designed care
processes result in better quality (Desai et al., 1997; Griffin and
Kinmouth, 1998).
Some have argued that health care is not amenable to quality
improvement ap-
proaches derived from other industries because inputs (patients)
are so variable;
outputs, such as health-related outcomes, so ill-defined; and the

need for expert
judgment and improvisation so demanding. Similar argume nts
have been made,
but not substantiated, in other service industries and by those in
the specialized
departments (e.g., legal) of manufacturing industries that have
subsequently ex-
perienced success in embracing principles of quality
improvement (Galvin, 1998).
Century
Fortunately, useful redesign principles that are now used widely
in other indus-
tries can be (and in some cases have been) adapted to health
care.
Engineering principles have been widely applied by other
industries and in
some health care organizations to design processes that improve
quality and
safety (Collins and Porras, 1997; Donaldson and Mohr, 2000;
Hodgetts, 1998;
Kegan, 1994; Peters and Waterman, 1982). The following
subsections describe
five such principles and their use by health care professionals to
improve pa-
tients’ experiences and safety, the flow of care processes, and

coordination and
communication among health professionals and with patients
(Langley et al.,
1996).
System Design Using the 80/20 Principle
The nurse assesses the patient demographics, risk factors,
support available,
medication, lifestyle, and barriers to making changes. The first
visit is usually
45 minutes to an hour long. Preventive screening visits are
done yearly—assess
vital signs, behavior, willingness to make changes. We take
retinal photos,
which are sent directly to the ophthalmologist, instead of
sending the patient
there. We learned that we need to risk stratify and fit the level
of services to the
level of risk. Services are less or more intense based on risk.
We use protocols
to identify risk level: primary—those with diabetes,
secondary—those with
diabetes and any other risk factors, tertiary—those who have
already had a
stroke, myocardial infarction, or renal failure.—Diabetic
management group
This engineering principle can be restated: Design for the
usual, but recog-
nize and plan for the unusual. Process design should be explicit
for the usual
case—for 80 percent of the work. For the remaining 20 percent,
contingency
plans should be assembled as needed. This concept is useful
both for designing

systems of care and as an approach to acculturating new
trainees. Also referred
to as the Pareto Principle, the 80/20 principle is based on the
recognition that a
small number of causes (20 percent) is responsible for a large
percentage (80
percent) of an effect (Juran, 1989; Transit Cooperative Research
Program, 1995).
In …
INTERDISCIPLINARY CARE PLAN 7
Class: NUR3400
Abstract
Patient care has received much attention in today’s healthcare
system. It enhances the treatment plan by involving different

health specialists in caring for the patient. Interdisciplinary
approach involves elements such as leadership, teamwork,
patient-centered practice, and through communications. The
care providers ensure effective assessment of the condition thus
meeting patient’s desires and needs. The team pools their
knowledge and expertise together towards the recovery of the
patients not just the treatment of the disease. Ideally, effective
patient outcomes can be achieved through a collaborative
approach to the treatment plan. This reduces readmission rates
and avoids duplication of duties during the treatment process.
The future of health care delivery depends on how effectively
the health providers implement the interdisciplinary approach.
In this paper, the interdisciplinary care plan will be drafted for
McKay Johnson, a patient diagnosed with diabetes and heart
disease.
Keywords: interdisciplinary, therapy, diabetes, heart disease.
Background Information
Patient Name:?
Age: ?
Sex: ?
Demographics: ?
Condition: (Diabetes and Heart Disease) or any other PMH
Situation: Patient is forgetful and lives alone
Medical History
Johnson was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2013, but he
reports he had symptoms one year before the diagnosis. The

medical record shows that he had fasting blood glucose records
showing values of 118-127 mg/dl, which categorized his
condition as “borderline diabetes.” In 2016, he was diagnosed
with heart problem. Johnson has been controlling diabetes until
last year when his family physician referred him to our hospital
for special treatment of the disease. His wife reports that her
husband began to experience abnormal heartbeats, difficulties in
breathing, and high blood pressure. The diagnosis shows that
Johnson recorded a pulse of 115 per minute while the systolic
blood pressure was 180 mm/Hg. He had bulging neck veins,
swelling in the legs, and fluids in the lungs. He had been on
glyburide (2.5 g every morning), Gymnema Sylvester, and
chromium picolinate to control diabetes. Johnson was also given
Angiotensin II receptor blockers and Statins to control heart
disease.
Johnson’s physical examination results show a BMI of 33.4
kg/m2, Pulse of 85 bpm, fasting glucose of 164 mg/dl, blood
pressure of 160/96 mmHg, JVP of 7 cm H2O, and 20
respirations per minute. He has lung crackles, no retinopathy,
swelling legs, non-palpable thyroid, no carotid bruits, and
diminishing vibratory sense to the forefoot. He reports regular
wheezing and dizziness throughout the day. The lab results
presented by the nurse show that Johnson has cholesterol-to-
HDL ratio of 4 (normal < 5.0), HDL cholesterol of 46 mg/dl
(normal < 40 mg/dl), triglycerides of 180 mg/dl (normal < 155
mg/dl), AIC of 7.5 % (normal 4-6 %), sodium of 137 mg/dl
(normal 136-146 mg/dl), potassium of 4.0 mg/dl (3.5-4.3
mg/dl), blood urea nitrogen 34 mg/dl (normal 6.1-30 mg/dl) and
Urine microalbumin of 42 mg (normal < 30 mg).
Medical Assessment
Based on Johnson’s medical history, physical examination, and
lab tests, it is evident he has uncontrollable type 2 diabetes and
heart disease. His hemoglobin level (7.5%) is slightly more than
the normal indicators (4-7%). He has a BMI of 32. 4 kg/m2 and
it is way above the BMI of a normal person. When an individual
exceeds a BMI of 30, he is termed as obese (Pop-Busui et al.,

2017). Johnson has elevated urine microalbumin and blood urea
nitrogen. These are the indicators of heart problem and diabetes.
Swelling legs, lung crackles, and regular wheezing are also the
signs of heart disease.
Care Plan
Johnson presents uncontrollable type 2 diabetes and heart
disease, which require a coordinated treatment process from all
nurses across the concerned disciplines. The first step of the
interdisciplinary team is to select the most pressing health issue
and prioritize his medical care in order to formulate an effective
treatment plan. The team has to follow the care plan for the two
diseases.
Nursing Intervention
Rationale
Assess the signs of hyperglycemia
A patient who uses insulin to treat type 2 diabetes is at risk of
developing hyperglycemia. Signs of hyperglycemia include
headache, fatigue, tachycardia, dizziness, and visual changes.
Assess glucose level before and after the meals
The glucose level should be between 140 mmHg and 180
mmHg. Non-intensive care patients should be maintained at less
than 140 mmHg (American Diabetes Association, 2019).
Monitor patient’s hemoglobin level
A level of 4-7% is desirable and shows the progress of the
treatment process.
Monitor blood pressure, apical pulse and peripheral pulse
Increased blood pressure is a sign of diabetes/heart disease.
Low pulse is a sign of decreasing tissue perfusion.
Do not take an axillary temperature
Elderly persons have poor peripheral circulation which
contributes to the formation of pocket airs in axillary areas
(Touhy, Jett, Boscart, & McCleary, 2018). This gives inaccurate
results.
Assess feet for temperature, and swellings. Monitor the color of
the skin
This will help to monitor peripheral perfusion. Pale skin color

is an indicator of decreased tissue perfusion.
Assess the pattern of physical activity
Regular physical activities assist in lowering the glucose level
(Naik, Dave, Stephens, & Davies, 2015). These activities
prevent further complications of diabetes and cardiac disease.
Administer basal insulin
Adhering to the prescribed medical regimens promotes tissue
perfusion. This will keep glucose at a normal level.
Report BP of more than 155 mmHg (systolic)
Hypertension is a common condition for diabetes and heart
disease. Controlling blood pressure can prevent further
complications such as stroke and retinopathy.
Monitor urine output as well as urine albumin
Urine albumin is a sign of diabetes while urine output shows the
control of both diabetes and heart disease.
Encourage Active ROM
ROM prevents venous pooling and promotes tissue perfusion.
Encourage bedrest with the head of the bed elevated at 45
degrees
This position prevents blood from returning to the heart thus
increasing oxygenation and decreasing dyspnea responsible for
cardiac attack (American Diabetes Association,2015).
Evaluate patient’s understanding of the medical conditions and
treatment plan
This reduces medication errors. Non-adherence to the prescribed
medication can lead to more complications such as
hypoglycemia and stroke.
Administer and monitor medication regimen
Proper administration of prescribed diabetic and heart disease
medication is important in stabilizing glucose level, hemoglobin
level, and blood pressure.
Review the patients current diet and nutritional needs
Proper diet helps maintain the normal level of glucose level
thus sustain the smooth flow of blood.
Treatment Goal

At the end of the treatment, Johnson should have blood glucose
level of less than 180 mmHg, BMI of less than 30.0 kg /m2,
Hemoglobin AIC level of less than 7%, blood urea nitrogen less
than 30 mg/dl, and Urine microalbumin of less than 30 mg/dl.
These results will be an indication of the successful treatment
plan.
Running head: CARE PLAN 1
CARE PLAN 6
References
American Diabetes Association. (2015). Cardiovascular disease
and risk management. Diabetes Care, 38(Suppl. 1), 49-57.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.2337/dc15-S011
American Diabetes Association. (2019). Cardiovascular disease
and risk management: Standards of medical care in diabetes-
2019. Diabetes Care, 42(Suppl. 1), 103–123. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19S010
Pop-Busui, R., Boulton, A., Feldman, E., Bril, V., Freeman, R.,
Malik, R. A. … Ziegler, D. (2017). Diabetic neuropathy: A
position statement by the American Diabetes Association.
Diabetes Care, 40(1) 136-154. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.2337/dc16-2042
Naik, V., Dave, R., Stephens, J. W., & Davies, J. S. (2015).
Evidence based prevention of type 2 diabetes: Role of lifestyle
intervention as compared to pharmacologic al agents.
International Journal of Diabetes and Clinical Research, 2(6).
49-56. Retrieved from
https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/ijdcr/international -journal-
of-diabetes-and-clinical-research-ijdcr-2-049.pdf
Touhy, T., Jett., K., Boscart, V., & McCleary, L. (2018).
Ebersole and Hess' gerontological nursing and healthy aging
(5th ed.). New York, NY: Elsevier - Health Sciences Division.

2 2 5
L e a r n i n g O b j e c t i v e s
C H A P T E R 9
A C H I E V I N G R E L I A B L E
Q U A L I T Y A N D S A F E T Y
After reading this chapter, you will be able to
➤ explain the role of reliability science in the improvement of
healthcare services,
➤ recognize how process reliability is measured and managed,
➤ identify strategies to increase the reliability of healthcare
processes by improving
the effectiveness of people and the systems in which they work,
and
➤ discuss how to measure the effectiveness of improvement
actions and sustain
the gains.
➤ Catastrophic processes
➤ Human factors
➤ Noncatastrophic processes
➤ Reliability science

K e y w o r d S
Spath, Patrice. Introduction to Healthcare Quality Management,
Third Edition : Third Edition, Health Administration Press,
2018. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/westernkentucky/detail.acti
on?docID=5517319.
Created from westernkentucky on 2021-02-15 13:07:15.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
8
.
H
e
a
lth
A
d
m

in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
I n t r o d u c t i o n t o H e a l t h c a r e Q u a l i t y M a n a
g e m e n t2 2 6

E
very year, healthcare organizations throughout the United States
conduct hundreds
of improvement projects following the models and using the
tools you studied in the
preceding chapters. With all of this activity, you might think the
quality of healthcare
services is exemplary, with few inefficiencies and mistakes. Yet
studies of healthcare perfor-
mance continue to report high rates of error, overuse of
services, and costly wastefulness
(Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2016).
Why are many of the expected improvements not materializing?
Does the fault lie
with the improvement project models or tools? Do we need to
conduct twice as many proj-
ects and involve more frontline workers? Although a lack of
significant progress is caused by
many factors, one element that greatly contributes to quality
problems is the design of work
systems. As noted by Paul Batalden, MD, director of healthcare
improvement leadership
development at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New
Hampshire, “every system is
perfectly designed to get the results it gets” (McInnis 2006, 32).
If we want fundamentally
different results in healthcare, we must use fundamentally
different improvement strategies.
Regardless of which improvement model is used for a project, at
some point actions
or risk reduction strategies are designed. Often these
interventions focus on creating new
procedures and training people to do their job correctly. Too

little attention is given to the
work systems that give rise to inefficiencies and human errors.
Bohmer (2010) proposes
that the only realistic hope for substantially improving
healthcare delivery is for the core
processes to be revamped.
In this chapter, we introduce the systems approach to achieving
safe and reliable
healthcare. These techniques are based on reliability science,
sometimes called human
factors engineering, which originated in the US military during
World War II (Wickens et
al. 2012). The concepts are commonplace in other industries and
should be applied when
healthcare improvement teams reach the action planning phase
of a project. By thinking
differently about the changes needed to improve performance,
project teams can have a
significant and sustainable positive impact.
re l i a b l e pe r f o r m a n C e
Performance reliability can be measured in various ways. The
simplest way is to measure
process output or outcomes. The number of actions that achieve
the intended results are
divided by the total number of actions taken. For instance, when
you see your doctor, you
expect her to have access to the results of your recently
completed laboratory tests. The
reliability of that process can be measured by gathering data on
the occurrences of missing
lab test results. If a clinic finds that 15 percent of outpatient
appointments are affected
by missing lab information, the process is said to have a failure
rate of 15 percent and a

reliability rate of 85 percent.
Reliability science
A discipline that
applies scientific
know-how to a process,
procedure, or health
service activity so
that it will perform its
intended function for
the required time under
commonly occurring
conditions.
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
8
.
H
e
a
lth
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
C h a p t e r 9 : A c h i e v i n g R e l i a b l e Q u a l i t y a n
d S a f e t y 2 2 7
You may not clearly understand the concept of reliability;
however, when your
automobile will not start, you clearly understand the concept of
failure. You also learn the
cost of failure when you have to pay a mechanic to restore your
automobile to a reliable
condition.
Human factors scientists and engineers have studied the
interactions of people,
technology, and policy across multiple industries for years.
Knowledge gained from these
studies allows us to predict the rate of failures based on the
reliability rating of the process.
For instance, if the clinic’s process of reporting lab results has

an 85 percent reliability
rating, the clinic physicians should expect miss-
ing results for one or two of every ten patients
who underwent recent laboratory tests. Exhibit
9.1 shows the expected failure rates for each level
of reliability (Resar 2006).
The reliability of healthcare processes var-
ies. Studies suggest that most US healthcare orga-
nizations currently perform at the 90 percent level
of reliability, meaning they have a failure rate of 1
in 10 (Nolan et al. 2004). Some hospital processes
(e.g., hand hygiene, hand-off communications) fail
40 to 60 percent of the time (Bodenheimer 2008;
Erasmus et al. 2010). One of the most reliable
healthcare processes is giving patients compatible
blood for a transfusion. Failures of this process
are rare, with the reliability rate estimated to be
99.999 percent (Amalberti et al. 2005).
Human factors
“The environmental,
organizational and job
factors, and individual
characteristics which
influence behavior at
work” (Clinical Human
Factors Group 2016).

Reliability Level (%) Expected Failure Rate
Less than 80 Unpredictable, chaotic performance
80–90 1–2 failures out of 10 opportunities
95 Up to 5 failures per 100 opportunities
99.5 Up to 5 failures per 1,000 opportunities
99.9999 Up to 5 failures per 1,000,000 opportunities
exhibit 9.1
Process Reliability
Levels and
Expected Failure
Rates
DID YOU KNOW??
• You have a 1 to 2 percent chance of dying accidentally for
every 10 mountains you climb in the Himalayas. The reliabil -
ity rating for this high-risk activity is 80 to 90 percent. Bun-
gee jumping has a similar risk of death.
• Automobile travel is fairly safe, with a reliability rating of
99.99 percent. The risk of a fatal accident is low —up to 5 for

every 10,000 times you ride in a car.
• The reliability of commercial aviation is better than 99.9999
percent, with an extremely low risk of a complete engine fail -
ure leading to loss of aircraft.
Source: Amalberti et al. (2005).
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
8
.
H
e

a
lth
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d

.
g e m e n t2 2 8
i m p r o v i n g Q u a l i t y
Reliability ratings are important for healthcare quality
improvement purposes. Reliability
science has demonstrated that certain process improvements are
more likely to create
consistent quality. When improvement actions rely mostly on
people’s vigilance and hard
work to get things done correctly, the best level of reliability
that can be achieved is 80 to
90 percent (Luria et al. 2006). On occasion, higher levels of
reliability can be achieved,
but they are not possible to sustain over time.
People often work in complex healthcare environments without
carefully designed
mistake-proofing infrastructures. For instance, hospital nurses
are constantly interrupted
as they carry out important patient care duties. In a review of
several studies of nurse
activities, the reported interruptions per hour ranged from 0.3 to
13.9 (Hopkinson and
Jennings 2013). Healthcare professionals are able to cope with
these situations and, most
often, performance is not affected. However, people cannot be
vigilant 100 percent of the
time, and mistakes happen.
Exhibit 9.2 summarizes the types of actions necessary to

achieve sustained reliable
quality at different percentages (Amalberti et al. 2005). These
actions, based on human
factors and reliability science principles, should be considered
in the design of actions
intended to improve quality.
Not every healthcare process can be made highly reliable.
Resources are insufficient,
and not every process requires a high (99.5 percent or greater)
level of reliability. For
noncatastrophic processes, good outcomes depend on having at
least 95 percent process
reliability. For catastrophic processes, good outcomes depend
on having 99.5 percent or
better reliability. Improvement project teams should agree on
the desired level of reliability
and then implement actions that will achieve this level. For
some healthcare processes, 80 to
90 percent reliability may be sufficient. Organizations might
achieve better patient outcomes
by bringing several chaotic processes to 90 percent reliability
rather than concentrating on
improving the reliability of just a few to 99.5 percent. This
thinking coincides with the risk
management concept of ALARP, which stands for “as low as
reasonably practicable.” Deter-
mining the extent to which workplace risks are controlled
“involves weighing a risk against
the trouble, time and money needed to control it” (Health and
Safety Executive 2014).
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Center
for Patient Safety
(2016) created an action categorization system on the basis of
human factors science. These

action categories are used by teams involved in root cause
analyses and other patient safety
improvement projects. Rather than divide improvement actions
into levels of reliability,
the actions are labeled as weak, intermediate, and strong.
Studies at the VA have shown
that when a strong action is developed and implemented, it is
2.5 times more likely to
be effective at improving performance than are weak or
intermediate actions (DeRosier,
Taylor, and Bagian 2007). The types of actions that fall into the
weak, intermediate, and
strong categories are listed in exhibit 9.3.
Noncatastrophic
processes
Processes that do
not generally lead
to patient death or
severe injury within
hours of a failure
(e.g., hand hygiene,
administration of low-
risk medications).
Catastrophic processes

Processes with a high
likelihood of patient
death or severe injury
immediately or within
hours of a failure
(e.g., identification of
correct surgery site,
administration of
compatible blood for a
transfusion).
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t

©
2
0
1
8
.
H
e
a
lth
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g

h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
d S a f e t y 2 2 9
Reliability Level (%) Actions
Less than 80 Primarily rely on qualified people doing what they
believe is the
right thing
80–90 Implement basic failure prevention strategies, such as the
following:
• Standard protocols/procedures/order sheets
• Personal checklists
• Common equipment
• Feedback on compliance
• Awareness and training
95 Implement sophisticated failure prevention and basic failure
identification and mitigation strategies, such as the following:
• Build decision aids and reminders into the system.
• Set the desired action as the default (based on scientific

evidence).
• Account for and take advantage of habits and patterns in the
process design.
• Specify process risks, and articulate actions for reducing risks.
• Take advantage of scheduling.
• Use redundant processes.
• Operate independent backups.
• Measure and provide feedback on compliance with process
specifications.
99.5 Gather information to understand which failures are
occurring,
how often they occur, and why they occur. Then redesign the
system to reduce these failures using sophisticated failure
prevention, identification, and mitigation strategies:
• Design the system to prevent the failure, making sure the
steps in the process act independently of each other so
failures can be identified and corrected.
• Design procedures and relationships to make failures visible
when they do occur so they may be intercepted before
causing harm.
• Design procedures and build capabilities for fixing failures
when they are identified or mitigating the harm caused by
failures when they are not detected and intercepted.
Better than 99.5 Moving beyond 99.5% requires technology and
advanced
system design that require significant resource investments.
Source: Adapted from Nolan et al. (2004).

exhibit 9.2
Actions Necessary
to Achieve
Reliability Levels
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
8
.
H
e
a
lth
A
d

m
in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

g e m e n t2 3 0
Improvement teams frequently favor weak interventions over
higher-level actions
because weak actions are lower risk and easier to create and
implement. Staff training and
distribution of memos telling everyone to follow procedures can
be accomplished fairly
easily. Unfortunately, such actions by themselves rarely have a
lasting impact (Williams and
Bagian 2014). Training can be made stronger by combining i t
with periodic competency
assessments involving random observation by management.
People newly trained in a
procedure are more likely to follow it if they know they will be
occasionally and randomly
observed (Bernstein et al. 2016).
ap p ly i n g re l i a b i l i t y pr i n C i p l e S
When actions based on reliability principles are not
incorporated into the design of health-
care improvement initiatives, the project goals are less likely to
be achieved. Consider
Strength of
Improvement Action Example of Action
Weak • Double-checks
• Warnings and labels
• New procedure/policy
• Memos
• Training
• Additional study/analysis
Intermediate • Checklist/cognitive aid
• Increase in staffing/decrease in workload

• Redundancy
• Enhanced communication (e.g., read back)
• Software enhancements/modifications
• Elimination of look-alikes and sound-alikes
• Elimination/reduction of distractions (e.g., sterile
medical environment)
Strong • Architectural/physical plant changes
• Tangible involvement and action by leadership in
support of patient safety
• Simplified process, with unnecessary steps removed
• Standardized equipment, process, or care map
• New-device usability testing before purchasing
• Engineering control or interlock (forcing functions)
Source: Reprinted from National Center for Patient Safety, US
Department of Veterans Affairs, “Root Cause
Analysis.” Retrieved from
www.patientsafety.va.gov/professionals/onthejob/rca.asp.
Copyright © 2016.
exhibit 9.3
Strength of Various
Improvement
Actions
on?docID=5517319.

re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
d S a f e t y 2 3 1
what happened in the following case study. An improvement
team met for several weeks
to design and implement actions aimed at reducing the
incidence of heel pressure ulcers
(skin breakdowns) among hospitalized patients.
C a S e S t u d y
Many patients in the hospital were developing heel ulcerations.
More than 13 percent of

patients aged 18 or older developed a heel ulcer within four
days of admission. This rate was
higher than the national average, so an improvement team was
formed with representatives
from nursing, physical therapy, and wound care services to
reduce the incidence of heel
ulcers by 50 percent within one year. The team evaluated
current practices and implemented
the following stepwise actions to improve the process:
1. Nurses were trained to use an assessment scoring system to
identify patients at
risk of heel ulcerations. A poster board showing assessment
instructions was
made available for five days in each nursing unit.
2. After reviewing the training material, nurses took a test to
determine their
proficiency in assessing a patient’s heel ulcer risk. A score of
90 percent was
required to pass the test.
3. Once all nurses had taken and passed the test, a new protocol
was
implemented that required use of the risk-assessment scoring
system at the
time of a patient’s admission, 48 hours after admission, and
whenever a
significant change was seen in a patient’s condition.
4. The hospital’s computerized health record system was
modified so nurses
could add the patient’s ulcer risk score into the patient’s record
at the required
intervals.

5. Patients at moderate or high risk of a heel ulcer were started
on a protocol of
ulcer prevention that included application of a thin dressing or
heel protectors
on reddened areas and elevation of the patient’s heels with
pillows.
One year after the actions were completed, the incidence of
hospital-acquired heel
pressure ulcers had not significantly changed. An analysis of
current practices found that
staff nurses were not consistently completing the periodic risk
assessments and that heel
ulcer prevention interventions were not always employed. A lot
of work had been done by
the improvement team, the people who had created the training
and post-training exam,
and the people who had modified the computerized record
system, yet no significant
improvements occurred.
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h

g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
g e m e n t2 3 2
Everyone involved in improvement projects wants performance
to improve. But good
intentions are not enough to ensure good outcomes. To achieve
better performance that
is reliable, human factors science must be taken into
consideration when making changes.
C o n S i d e r t h e h u m a n f a C t o r S
Often, improvement initiatives fail because we expect people to
perfectly execute their job
responsibilities. Competence is important to an individual’s
ability to do her job—you
wouldn’t expect someone untrained in automobile repair to fix
your car. But humans are
not perfect, and there are no guarantees that mistakes will not
be made. Interventions to
improve performance are most successful when they address

both the individuals doing the
work and the way in which work gets done. For instance, the
automobile mechanic must
be adequately trained, have the right tools, and be provided a
tolerable work environment.
When healthcare improvement teams reach the action-planning
phase, they must consider
the human aspects that cause inconsistent performance and
design systems that promote
reliable quality.
Strong and effective systems make people more effective than
they might be without
such systems. Changes in procedures, rules, workflow, and
automation; the introduction of
new technology and equipment; and other system changes help
to make people effective. In
addition, strong and effective people make systems more
effective. Rather than blaming and
shaming people for not doing their job, seek to develop and
enhance the competencies and
skills of people in the system and ensure their needs are met.
When introducing workflow
changes, automation, new roles, and other interventions
designed to improve performance,
consider the needs of the people involved and how they will be
affected. Organizations
often fail in this regard by making the following mistakes
(Spath 2015):
◆ Creating additional work for fewer people
◆ Removing people from roles in which they were comfortable
◆ Placing people in unfamiliar new roles as if they were
interchangeable parts

◆ Not involving or consulting with the people affected by
decisions but instead
making assumptions about what is “good for them”
When working in complex and sometimes fast-moving
healthcare environments,
people can become overwhelmed with tasks, potentially causing
cognitive overload—a situ-
ation in which the demands of the job exceed the individual’s
ability to mentally process
all the information encountered regarding a situation (Ternov
2011). To ensure people are
as effective as possible in their job, cognitive overload must be
minimized. Critical concept
9.1 shows how to do this.
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2

0
1
8
.
H
e
a
lth
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
d S a f e t y 2 3 3
t e S t r e d e S i g n e d p r o C e S S e S
Changes to processes are often implemented without a clear
understanding of how the
change affects other parts of the system—the people, other
processes, and services. Testing
the impact of redesigned processes on performance is a crucial
step in all the improvement
models described in chapter 5. One way to assess improvements
is to test process changes,
before they are implemented, on a small subset of activities or
patients (usually five to ten
individuals). If the changes achieve the intended goals, they can
be applied to all activities
or patients. Quantitative and qualitative data should be collected
during the pilot phase
of a process change. This information helps the project team see
the impact changes will
CRITICAL CONCEPT 9.1
Steps to Reduce Cognitive Overload on People!

• Limit or discourage people from working when they are
physically ill or under psy-
chological duress.
• Be sure people are physically and psychologically fit for the
tasks that need to be
completed.
• Provide people with adequate breaks away from their job;
breaks should not be op-
tional.
• Add technologies that reduce reliance on memory, and insist
that the technology
be used as designed (e.g., barcoded patient identification
systems, monitoring
systems).
• Rotate tasks in a department when possible; when people do
the same task all the
time, they can become complacent and experience the effects of
mental underload.
• Monitor people for excessive fatigue; a lack of adequate rest
reduces productivity
and efficiency.
• Place limitations on employee overtime, and provide adequate
off-work intervals

between shifts.
• Provide team training, including the use of simulation
methods.
Source: Adapted from Kochar and Connelly (2013); Patel and
Buchman (2016); Vincent and Amalberti (2016).
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
8
.
H
e
a

lth
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

g e m e n t2 3 4
have on the people doing the work as well as on related
activities and systems. It also can
convince others of the value of adopting the changes
organization-wide.
Testing does not end at the pilot phase. After changes have been
implemented for
a short time, the team must determine how well they are
working.
a C h i e v e 80 t o 90 p e r C e n t r e l i a b i l i t y
To consistently reach 80 to 90 percent work system reliability,
the improvement team must
create a specific process and use staff education and vigilance
to achieve standardization. The
attempt at reducing heel pressure ulcers described in the case
study earlier in this chapter
lacked an important component: vigilance. Specific processes
were designed to assess a
patient’s risk of a heel ulcer and to prevent one from
developing, and staff was educated in
these processes. But management exercised no ongoing
oversight to determine if nurses were
following the processes, and no actions were taken for
noncompliance. Without vigilance,
compliance slid, and the failure rate often exceeded 20 percent.
Standardization and vigilance are necessary to reach sustained
80 to 90 percent

reliability. These contributors to quality can be instituted by
creating defined protocols,
requiring the use of common equipment or supplies, creating
checklists that remind people
what needs to be done, and following other methods for
reducing process variation. Many
of these techniques are the same strategies used during a Lean
project to eliminate waste
and improve process efficiencies (Zidel 2012).
Process standardization also improves patient safety. According
to Bagian and
colleagues (2011), local patient safety managers in VA facilities
rated process standard-
ization as one of the best interventions for achieving good
results. Other actions rated as
leading to much better results included those that improve the
communication process
between clinicians and those that enhance the computerized
medical record through
software upgrades.
If an improvement team has determined that 80 to 90 percent
reliability is suffi-
cient, it need not take further action other than periodic
monitoring to ensure the failure
rate does not increase. Exhibit 9.4 describes the steps that a
rehabilitation facility took to
reach 80 to 90 percent sustained compliance with hand-hygiene
requirements. This level
of reliability was the goal, so no further interventions were
needed.
Additional improvement actions are necessary if a higher level
of reliability is desired.
They should not be taken, however, until a sustained level of 80

to 90 percent reliability has
been achieved for at least six months (Baker, Crowe, and Lewis
2009). Adding improve-
ment actions when a process is still unstable could further
degrade reliability. The adverse
effect of tampering was discussed in chapter 4.
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
8
.
H
e
a
lth

A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

d S a f e t y 2 3 5
a C h i e v e 95 p e r C e n t r e l i a b i l i t y
Moving a work system from 80 to 90 …
1 7 5
L e a r n i n g O b j e c t i v e s
C H A P T E R 7
I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T
T E A M S
After reading this chapter, you will be able to
➤ explain the role of improvement project participants,
➤ discuss the purpose of a team charter,
➤ recognize beneficial and disruptive team behaviors,
➤ apply leadership skills to manage team meetings effectively,
➤ describe the stages of team development, and
➤ identify strategies for preventing improvement project
failures.

tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
g e m e n t1 7 6
➤ Charter
➤ Facilitator
➤ Ground rules

➤ Independents
➤ Inputs
➤ Leadership
➤ Outputs
➤ Problem statement
➤ Process owners
➤ Sponsor
I
f improvement models are the recipe and if improvement tools
are the ingredients, where
does the improvement team fit into this analogy? When I bake a
cake, I work alone; I
do not need a group of people to help me. I could not work
alone, however, if I had to
prepare a banquet for 50 guests. I would need a team of people
to help cook the meal. The
more complex the process—whether cooking or improving
health services quality—the
greater is the need for teamwork. When improvement
opportunities are identified, a group
of people known as an improvement team is assembled. By
following an improvement model
and using improvement tools, the team works together to
accomplish improvement goals.
This team’s success hinges on effective project management.
A formal team need not be assembled for every improvement

opportunity. The case
study at the beginning of chapter 3 describes an initiative to
reduce patient wait times at
the Redwood Health Center. The clinic manager did most of the
work for this project.
He gathered data on how long patients waited to be seen by a
clinician, shared those data
with other people in the clinic, and informally discussed ways
of reducing wait times. An
improvement team was not formed for the project. Likewise, for
the improvement initia-
tive involving patient identification wristbands at Community
Hospital in chapter 4, a
project team was not formed to resolve the problems people
were having with the bands.
After collecting information about band defects, the manager
fixed the problem on her
own. The case study discussing Sunrise Home Health Agency at
the beginning of chapter
5 is yet another example of an informal initiative. The director
and clinical staff members
used regular staff meetings to revise the meeting process.
Some performance problems cannot (and should not) be solved
individually or
informally and require the attention of a dedicated improvement
project team that includes
several people familiar with the systems and processes that need
to be changed. A project
team should be created when the improvement goal is more
likely to be achieved through the
K e y w o r d S

tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
C h a p t e r 7 : I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t T e a m s 1 7
7
coordinated efforts of people with varying knowledge, skills,
and perspectives. The greatest
improvement potential lies in problems that involve different
professions and departments.
The team’s role is to analyze and eliminate undesirable,

unpredictable, or unworkable per-
formance situations. Once the improvement project is complete,
the team is disbanded.
People at all levels in the organization may be part of an
improvement project team.
Because projects generally take employees away from their
primary work responsibilities,
time spent on an improvement initiative had better produce
measurable performance gains.
This chapter describes ways to increase the likelihood that
formal improvement projects
will be successful.
pr o j e C t pa rt i C i pa n t S
When the best approach to an improvement opportunity is a
formal project, a team of
people is chosen to fill the following roles:
◆ Sponsor
◆ Team leader
◆ Facilitator
◆ Recorder
◆ Timekeeper
◆ Team members
These roles are summarized in exhibit 7.1. Although the roles
may vary, at a mini-
mum each project has a sponsor, a team leader, and team
members. Involvement of the
other roles depends on the organization’s resources and the

scope of the project.
S p o n S o r
The project sponsor is the individual or group that decides to
initiate an improvement
project. If the improvement project involves more than one
department, a leadership rep-
resentative or a quality oversight committee should sponsor the
project. (The role of quality
oversight committees is covered in chapter 12.) If the project
affects activities in only one
department or unit, the manager of that area usually serves as
the sponsor.
The sponsor clearly defines the performance problem that needs
to be solved by
writing a problem statement—a description of the situation. The
problem statement,
sometimes called the aim statement, influences many aspects of
the project, including the
makeup of the team and the improvement expectations. In
addition, a clearly communicated
Sponsor
An individual or a
group that supports,
guides, and mentors an
improvement project
team; serves as a link

to the organization’s
leadership; removes
barriers; and acquires
the resources a team
needs to achieve
successful outcomes.
Leadership
An organization’s
senior leaders or
decision makers.
Problem statement
A description of the
performance problem
that needs to be
solved. Sometimes
called the aim
statement.

tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
g e m e n t1 7 8
problem statement establishes project boundaries so that
problem-solving activities do not
escalate into larger issues or wander into unrelated topics.
The project goal should include measurable improvement

expectations. For instance,
the manager at Community Hospital hoped to achieve an 80
percent reduction in staff
complaints about patient identification bands by making some
process changes. The proj-
ect sponsor sets these expectations and defines the time frame
for achieving them. An
explicit project goal with clearly stated, measurable
expectations and time frames focuses
the improvement efforts.
Once the goal is clear, the sponsor identifies people who need
to be included in
the project. If the sponsor already has someone in mind to serve
as the team leader, that
person may help the sponsor select these key people. The
following questions can guide
their selection:
◆ Where is the problem occurring?
◆ What tasks are involved?
◆ Who carries out these tasks?
Project
Participant Role
Sponsor Charters the improvement team, provides initial
improvement
goals, monitors team progress, and supports the team
Team leader Coordinates project assignments and
communication with
external parties, removes barriers, and keeps the project on
track

Facilitator Helps manage discussions about the process during
team
meetings, usually by asking questions (e.g., How do we want to
make this decision? What points can we agree on?)
Recorder Captures ideas, decisions, action items, and
assignments on
a flip chart or whiteboard for later transcription into a written
summary of the project
Timekeeper Keeps track of time during project meetings
Team member Participates in discussions, decision-making, and
other team
tasks such as gathering data, analyzing information, assisting
with documentation, and sharing results
exhibit 7.1
Roles of
Improvement
Project Participants
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr

ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
9
◆ Who determines how the tasks should be done?
◆ Who provides the inputs to these tasks?
◆ Who uses the outputs of these tasks?
The people chosen for the team should possess detailed
knowledge gained through
experience with some part of the performance problem. They
also must be willing and able
to attend team meetings and make time for project work that
may need to be done between
meetings. Once the project is under way, the team may ask
additional members to participate
if critical expertise is needed or a key group is not represented.

The team should be capped
at five to ten members. To keep the team from expanding
beyond the preferred size, some
individuals may serve as consultants and attend meetings only
when their expertise is needed.
In an ideal project initiation, the sponsor creates a written
charter incorporating
all the aforementioned elements: the project goal, a description
of the system or process to
be improved, the time frame for project completion,
deliverables, measures, project scope,
and team members. Exhibit 7.2 is a charter for a project aimed
at improving the employee
hiring process in a county-operated emergency medical service
(ambulance) company.
When expectations are unclear or too broad, an improvement
project can flounder.
At one hospital, for example, staff members voiced concerns
about the safety of the process
of ordering, dispensing, and administering chemotherapy
medications. An interdisciplinary
team was chartered, which included representatives from the
hospital’s inpatient, outpatient,
adult, and pediatric areas (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and
laboratory staff). Over a four-
month period, the team developed a top-down flowchart of the
process, which ultimately
was diagrammed as 21 steps, each with multiple substeps. On
review, the team realized the
enormity of the project and discovered that each area had its
own way of executing tasks.
The charter the team developed at the outset of the project was
too broad and was stalling
the project. The team decided it would address only the adult

outpatient population and
limited the project to the medication administration phase,
where most of the problems
were occurring. Once the project scope and focus were better
defined, the improvement
initiative proceeded more quickly.
Charters keep teams focused and on track during projects. Team
members may
want to revisit the charter periodically to remind themselves of
the project’s boundaries
and the objectives of the improvement effort. If the team
receives new information during
the project or if situations change, it may need to renegotiate its
objectives or boundaries.
The sponsor supports the team throughout the project,
monitoring progress and
clearing obstacles that may arise. The sponsor acts as a
sounding board for improvement
ideas but does not become overly involved in the details of the
team’s work. At the end of
the project, the sponsor reviews the team’s improvement actions
and ensures the solutions
are effectively implemented.
Inputs
Products, services, or
information flowing
into a process.
Outputs

Products, services, or
information flowing out
of a process.
Charter
A written declaration of
an improvement team’s
purpose. (An example
of an improvement
project charter is found
in exhibit 7.2.)
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t

h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
g e m e n t1 8 0
Problem Statement
• During the last fiscal year, 342 applications were received for
paramedic
or emergency medical technician (EMT) vacancies. In this same
period, 49
applicants—14%—were hired and eventually began employment
with Grant County
Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
• The current hiring process for EMTs and paramedics averages
87 days with a range
of 7 to 212 days from time of application.
• As of February, EMS operations are understaffed by 17% (47
vacancies for EMTs and
paramedics).
• Understaffing causes an increase in EMS operational overtime,

idle time during
field training, and system and administrative workload.
Goal
A 5% or less vacancy rate for EMTs and paramedics
Project Scope
Individuals who apply for a paramedic or EMT position with
Grant County EMS
Out-of-Project Scope
• Existing paramedic or EMT employees who are promoted or
return to full-time
status
• Vacancies for other positions
Measures
• Current vacancies
• Current overtime standby utilization
• Hiring process intervals (in days) and
cost
• Applicants (count)
• Applicant status (percentage of overall
applicants)
• Range of application date to start date
Deliverables
Within 6 months:
• Increase the hire rate of qualified applicants from 14% to
30%.
• Reduce annualized cost of EMS overtime and standby time to
less than $280,000.

• Reduce cost per new hire (recruiting, advertising, and
assessing) to no more than
$300.
Sponsor Robert Jones, Director, Public Safety
Team Leader Larry McNeill, Deputy Chief, EMS Training
Team Members • Jackie Gregory, Administrative Services
• Todd O’Brien, Human Resources
• Michael Fine, EMT
• Gary Young, Paramedic
Team Facilitator Sally Steward, Manager, Information Services
exhibit 7.2
Charter for
Improvement
Project
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig

ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
1
t e a m l e a d e r
The team leader organizes the project, chairs team discussions,
keeps the project focused
on the improvement goal, establishes the meeting schedule, and
serves as a liaison between
the team and the sponsor. Often, team leaders are process
owners—supervisors, manag-
ers, or physicians in the work area most affected by the
improvement project. The leader
is considered a member of the team.
The team leader should be familiar with the improvement model
to be used during
the project and various improvement tools. She should also be
skilled at managing group
interactions and running a project. Some organiza-

tions assign a quality resource advisor to interde-
partmental improvement projects. This person is
familiar with performance improvement principles
and serves as an internal consultant. The quality
resource advisor helps the team understand the
purpose of the project, the desired results, and
team roles and responsibilities. When there is no
quality advisor assigned to the project, the team
leader takes on these responsibilities.
f a C i l i tat o r
The facilitator supports the team leader. The
facilitator assists with team-building activities,
keeps meeting discussions and the entire project
on track, and ensures deadlines are met. The facili-
tator should be an objective team resource and
detached from the process being improved. As a neutral party,
the facilitator is particularly
effective at engaging everyone on the team and helping the
group reach consensus on
controversial issues.
The facilitator works with the leader to plan meetings, structure
tasks and assign-
ments, and incorporate quality improvement tools into the
project. The facilitator knows
what data to gather, how to gather the data, and how to present
the results in a meaningful
graphic or tabular form.
In cases where the project is not overly complex, one person
may assume the dual
role of team leader and facilitator. Research suggests, however,
that multifaceted healthcare
improvement projects involving several departments and

professions benefit from having
a facilitator who is not also responsible for leading the project
(Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality 2013).
Process owners
Individuals ultimately
responsible for a
process, including
its performance and
outcomes.
Facilitator
An individual
knowledgeable about
group processes and
team interaction as
well as performance
improvement principles
and techniques.
DID YOU KNOW??
A team leader’s abilities and characteristics influence the out-

come of an improvement initiative. Studies have demonstrated
the importance of the following characteristics of a team leader
(Turner and Müller 2005):
• Problem-solving ability
• Perspective
• Results orientation
• Communication skills
• Energy and initiative
• Negotiation skills
• Self-confidence
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h

g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
g e m e n t1 8 2
r e C o r d e r
The recorder, or notetaker, documents activities throughout the
project. This position is
usually assigned to one or more team members. During
meetings, recorders are responsible
for writing the team’s ideas, decisions, and recommendations on
a flip chart or whiteboard.
Recorders also create meeting minutes and distribute them to
team members before the
next meeting. The team uses the minutes to recall previous
ideas, decisions, the rationales
behind the decisions, actions to be taken, the people responsible
for executing those actions,
and the schedule according to which those actions will be
carried out.
t i m e K e e p e r

The timekeeper keeps the team on track during meetings. If the
time allotted for a discus-
sion point is exceeded, the timekeeper alerts the group. The
team then decides whether to
accelerate the discussion, defer the item to another meeting, or
end the discussion. In some
cases, the leader functions as the timekeeper, or this role may
be assigned to the facilitator
or another team member.
t e a m m e m b e r S
Team members share responsibility for achieving the
improvement goal. Members participate
in discussions, decision-making, and other team
tasks such as data collection. Each team mem-
ber should represent a program, department, or
work unit significantly affected by the process to
be improved or the problem to be solved. Ideally,
team members should have a basic understanding
of quality improvement principles, but familiar-
ity with this topic is not a prerequisite for team
membership.
Inclusion of one or two independents —
members with little or no knowledge of the
process—can also be useful. Because independents have no
vested interest in the prob-
lem, they may provide a fresh and creative perspective. Some
healthcare improvement
projects also benefit from customer input. For example, if a
hospital team is working
to improve security in the maternity ward, a woman who
recently delivered a baby

in the facility can be included as a team member. The recent
patient may be made a
permanent member of the team or serve part time by attending
meetings only when
her input is needed.
Independents
Improvement team
members who have
little or no knowledge
of the process under
consideration and have
no vested interest in
the outcome of the
project.
LEARNING POINT
Project Participants*
An improvement project involves several roles. At a minimum,
each project includes a sponsor, a team leader, and team
members.

n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
3
te a m me e t i n g S
At the first meeting, the team leader uses the project charter to
introduce and explain the
project goal and scope. He should discuss the charter openly to
prevent misunderstandings.
Any confusion or disagreement should be resolved at the first

meeting.
The team leader also provides an overview of the project
timeline at the first meet-
ing. Exhibit 7.3 is a Gantt chart showing the approximate start
and finish times for the
steps of an improvement project.
The first meeting also is a good time to set ground rules for
team conduct— directives
stating how team members are expected to communicate in
meetings, make decisions,
resolve conflicts, and so forth. Critical concept 7.1 lists
examples of improvement team
ground rules. Teams usually adopt only a few key ground rules;
however, project improve-
ment best practices do not limit the number (Barner and Barner
2012).
Ground rules
Established
guidelines for how an
improvement team
wants to operate;
norms for behavior.
(Examples of ground
rules are found in
critical concept 7.1.)

exhibit 7.3
Gantt Chart for
an Improvement
Project
March April May June July August September October
Develop project
charter
Appoint
improvement team
Kick off project—
first team meeting
Analyze current
practices
Gather performance
data
Identify improvement
opportunities—
second meeting
Solicit solution ideas
from colleagues
Finalize solutions—
third meeting
Implement solutions
on a trial basis

Evaluate the
effect of solutions—
fourth meeting
Roll out successful
solutions
Redesign ineffective
solutions—
fifth meeting
Evaluation Criteria
on?docID=5517319.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
8
.

H
e
a
lth
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
tio
n
P
re
ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se

rv
e
d
.
g e m e n t1 8 4
CRITICAL CONCEPT 7.1
Improvement Team Ground Rules!
• Participate by sharing your own opinions and experiences.
• Contribute but do not dominate.
• Actively listen to and consider the opinions of others.
• Stay focused on the improvement goal.
• Avoid side conversations.
• Respect other people’s time (e.g., arrive on time, do not leave
early, return from
breaks promptly).
• Complete assignments to which you have committed.
• Speak one at a time.
• Leave rank at the door; all team members are equal.
• Address conflict by dealing with the issue, not the person.

• Turn off cell phones and other mobile devices.
• Be a participant, not a lurker.
• Have fun, but not at the expense of someone else’s feelings.
• Be physically and mentally present during meetings.
• Listen, listen, listen, and respond.
• Allow for some mistakes; acknowledge them, let go, and move
on.
• Accept conflict and its resolution as necessary catalysts for
learning.
• Be open-minded to new thoughts and different behaviors.
• Honor confidentiality.
• Accept diversity as a gift.
• Begin and end all meetings on time.
• Share in the responsibilities of the recorder.
• Criticize ideas, not individuals.
on?docID=5517319.

ss
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
5
Some organizations have a core set of ground rules for all
improvement projects.
From this set, teams are usually allowed to select the rules they
wish to observe. If the
organization has no such set of rules, the leader solicits ideas
from the team members by
asking them to describe acceptable team behaviors. When the
list is finalized and everyone
understands the ground rules, members individually
acknowledge that they agree to abide
by the group behaviors. Posting the rules on a large sheet of

paper in the meeting room is
an effective way to remind group members of the rules they
agreed to follow.
i m p r o v e m e n t p r o j e C t l e n g t h
The time needed to complete an improvement project varies.
Some projects are elephant-
sized, and some are bite-sized. Exhibit 7.4 is a timeline for
completing a project involving
hospital signage. At this hospital, patients occasionally have
difficulty finding the outpa-
tient testing departments. Although signs are posted to lead the
way, patients may not be
able to read the signs or the signs may be unclear. The dir ector
of the patient registration
department brought this concern to the attention of the chief
operating officer, who then
sponsored a project to resolve the problem.
Not all projects are completed quickly. A project team at the
University of Wisconsin
Hospital and Clinics was formed for the purpose of improving
the use of intravenous pumps
to deliver patient medications (Tosha et al. 2006). The 22-
member team included represen-
tatives from anesthesiology, biomedical engineering central
supply, industrial engineering,
internal medicine, nursing, and pharmacy. The team met for 46
hours over four-and-a-half
months to describe the process, identify improvement
opportunities, and design solutions,
and then it took additional time to implement the solutions
(Tosha et al. 2006).
Whether the project is long or short, the team should meet

regularly; otherwise,
enthusiasm for achieving the improvement goal diminishes. The
project sponsor must stay
informed of the progress of the initiative and intervene w hen
progress is moving too slowly.
t h e l e a d e r ’ S r e S p o n S i b i l i t i e S
The team leader manages project meetings. This responsibility
involves activities that ensure
meetings are well run, including
◆ preparing the meeting agenda and distributing it at least one
day in advance,
◆ keeping the meeting focused on the agenda,
◆ encouraging participation by all team members,
◆ fostering an environment in which team members feel safe
expressing their
ideas, and
◆ distributing the last meeting’s minutes before the next
meeting.
on?docID=5517319.
C
o

.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
g e m e n t1 8 6
Timeline Activities
Week 1 The team meets for two hours to discuss project
objectives and set ground
rules. The members brainstorm reasons patients …

Details distribution, posting, or copying of this pdf is st

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Details distribution, posting, or copying of this pdf is st (20)

More from nand15 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Details distribution, posting, or copying of this pdf is st