PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16849985

Quality management: does it pay off?

Abstract

Health care today is facing serious quality problems while costs are exploding. Quality management therefore becomes a major strategic challenge. In this article, we go through the strategy deployment and quality management process of the Red Cross Hospital in the Netherlands. Growth, efficiency improvement, and optimizing quality of care were chosen as our main strategic goals. To enable achievement of these goals, we implemented and integrated an ISO 9001:2000 quality management system with Six Sigma, a quality improvement approach from industry. The results of 5 years of quality management illustrated by the scores of a number of performance indicators clearly show that we were able to achieve all our strategic goals. On the basis of our findings, we believe that the combination of ISO 9000 and Six Sigma provides the proper tools to bring health care organizations to a higher level of performance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jaap van den Heuvel, Ad J J C Bogers, Ronald J M M Does, Sandra L van Dijk, Marc Berg. Quality management: does it pay off?. https://doi.org/10.1097/00019514-200607000-00003

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Leadership and change processes in hospitals].

BACKGROUND: Successful change processes in hospitals require leaders with strong competence and personal suitability, who can develop resource efficient and creative solutions. We have investigated how division leaders handle change processes and solve problems that arise in cross-disciplinary meeting activities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight division leaders at two hospitals in the same region of Norway have gone through in-depth interviews about change leadership. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS: Some of the division leaders were familiar with facilitating change processes and used a range of methods and tools, but the majority had limited insight into which methods would be most appropriate in the various phases of a change process. They signalised that the most difficult challenge was to handle interactions dominated by suspicion, negative interpretation, assumptions and hidden agendas. Such interplays were the most limiting factor in the development of a common understanding of demands, goals and commitment to change processes across departments and units.

Hospital Administration↗