Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Moving from quality assurance to continuous quality improvement.

J Zusman1

  • 1Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Physician Executive
|June 7, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reaction.

The journal of primary prevention·2013
Same author

Addendum to debate statement.

The journal of primary prevention·2013
Same author

"No-therapy": A method of helping persons with problems.

Community mental health journal·2013
Same author

Ways to address medical errors.

Health affairs (Project Hope)·2001
Same author

A study of thiotepa, etoposide and fractionated total body irradiation as a preparative regimen prior to bone marrow transplantation for poor prognosis patients with neuroblastoma.

Bone marrow transplantation·1996
Same author

JCAHO still the best option.

Modern healthcare·1994

The shift from quality assurance (QA) to continuous quality improvement (CQI) lacks systematic cost-benefit analysis. This article urges preserving QA's value while exploring CQI's potential benefits.

Area of Science:

  • Healthcare Management
  • Quality Improvement Science

Background:

  • The healthcare industry is transitioning from traditional quality assurance (QA) to continuous quality improvement (CQI).
  • Proponents highlight QA's limitations and CQI's advantages, yet systematic comparisons are scarce.
  • Discourse often relies on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To address the lack of systematic cost-benefit analysis comparing QA and CQI.
  • To express concern about potentially losing valuable aspects of QA during the transition.
  • To caution against overestimating CQI's benefits without thorough evaluation.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic literature review and critical analysis of existing discourse on QA and CQI.
  • Examination of anecdotal evidence and analogies used to support the shift to CQI.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Conceptual framework development for comparing QA and CQI.

    • Main Results:

    • Limited empirical data exists for a direct cost-benefit comparison between QA and CQI.
    • Much of the argument for CQI is based on assertions, analogies, and anecdotes, not rigorous evidence.
    • The potential loss of valuable components of QA during the transition is a significant concern.

    Conclusions:

    • The transition to CQI requires careful consideration to avoid discarding proven QA benefits.
    • Healthcare must build upon QA's established achievements rather than abandoning them.
    • Further research is needed to systematically evaluate the costs and benefits of both QA and CQI.