Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Counte, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Meurer, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Counte, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Meurer, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 13:197-207 (2001)
© 2001 International Society for Quality in Health Care

Issues in the assessment of continuous quality improvement implementation in health care organizations

Michael A. Counte1 and Steven Meurer2

1 Department of Health Administration, Saint Louis University, St Louis, MO, USA
2 Doctoral Program in Health Services Research, Saint Louis University, St Louis, MO, USA

Objective. This paper has two primary aims. First, it examines the need for improved assessment of continuous quality improvement implementation. Second, it analyzes current worldwide measures and studies of continuous quality improvement implementation.

Method. A comprehensive literature review was conducted which included all published (English language) studies of organization-wide continuous quality improvement implementation.

Results. Analysis of the content and research methods incorporated into current measures of continuous quality improvement implementation used worldwide supports a strong consensus regarding the major criteria that need to be addressed. However, there are still promising areas for future research, namely increased use of criteria other than the Baldrige categories, increased focus upon financial variables, improved measures of implementation stage/phase and the use of different types of respondents from multiple organizational levels.

Conclusion. Increased understanding of the empirical benefits and costs of continuous quality improvement in health care organizations is heavily contingent upon the continued development and improvement of measures of continuous quality improvement implementation.

Keywords: criteria, quality improvement implementation, quality evaluation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Qual Saf Health CareHome page
S Kunkel, U Rosenqvist, and R Westerling
Implementation strategies influence the structure, process and outcome of quality systems: an empirical study of hospital departments in Sweden
Qual. Saf. Health Care, February 1, 2009; 18(1): 49 - 54.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J Qual Health CareHome page
M. Minkman, K. Ahaus, and R. Huijsman
Performance improvement based on integrated quality management models: what evidence do we have? A systematic literature review
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, April 1, 2007; 19(2): 90 - 104.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
C. Feifer, S. M. Ornstein, R. G. Jenkins, A. Wessell, S. T. Corley, L. S. Nemeth, L. Roylance, P. J. Nietert, and H. Liszka
The Logic Behind a Multimethod Intervention to Improve Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines in a Nationwide Network of Primary Care Practices
Eval Health Prof, March 1, 2006; 29(1): 65 - 88.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Journal of Medical QualityHome page
G. Warner, M.-L. Drainoni, V. Parker, B. D. Agins, and L. Eldred
Factors Associated with the Successful Implementation of a Quality Improvement Project in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Ambulatory Care Clinics
American Journal of Medical Quality, March 1, 2004; 19(2): 75 - 82.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.