Parker Louise E, de Pillis Emmeline, Altschuler Andrea, Rubenstein Lisa V, Meredith Lisa S
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Qual Health Res. 2007 Nov;17(9):1268-79. doi: 10.1177/1049732307307447.
In a longitudinal qualitative study, the authors evaluated two health care quality improvement (QI) methods that emphasized either participation (local approach) or expertise (central approach). They followed teams using these approaches to develop depression care QI programs for primary care practices over several years, observing their processes and outcomes and learning about participants' perceptions, beliefs, and experiences. Concordant with the literature, most participants preferred the local approach, but some were willing to relinquish some decision making to experts. Participants identified unique advantages of both the local (e.g., maximizes buy-in and local fit) and central (e.g., maximizes efficiency, reduces burden) approaches. The authors propose a hybrid model in which experts make strategic decisions about what practices to adopt and local site personal make tactical decisions about implementation. They believe that balancing participation and expertise provides the best formula for producing lasting QI for health care organizations across a wide variety of circumstances.
在一项纵向定性研究中,作者评估了两种医疗质量改进(QI)方法,一种强调参与(地方方法),另一种强调专业知识(中央方法)。他们跟踪了采用这些方法为基层医疗实践制定抑郁症护理QI项目的团队数年,观察其过程和结果,并了解参与者的看法、信念和经历。与文献一致,大多数参与者更喜欢地方方法,但也有一些人愿意将一些决策权交给专家。参与者指出了地方方法(如最大限度地提高认同度和地方适应性)和中央方法(如最大限度地提高效率、减轻负担)各自独特的优势。作者提出了一种混合模式,即专家对采用何种实践做出战略决策,而地方机构人员对实施做出战术决策。他们认为,在参与和专业知识之间取得平衡,为在各种情况下为医疗保健组织产生持久的QI提供了最佳方案。