PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8295033

System for quality management.

C M Yarborough
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Total quality management will provide important benefits for organizations that are involved with the delivery of occupational and environmental health care. These organizations should shift from traditional medical management to the new paradigm. Identification of a set of relevant parameters for this new management system is necessary to implement the quality culture within our professional settings. An exhaustive literature search was undertaken on the topic of total quality management to delineate a framework for consideration by occupational and environmental health managers. Proposed are essential components of a management system for quality excellence which are derived from review of reported approaches among health care organizations and industry, various lists of quality principles and criteria, and classical systems theory.

Explore related subjects

Delivery of Health CareHumansManaged Care ProgramsManagement Quality CirclesOccupational Health ServicesQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ControlJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C M Yarborough. 1993. System for quality management.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-199311000-00011

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

U.S. healthcare: the intertwined caduceus of physicians, coverage, quality, and cost.

As cardiologists, we should increase our efforts to improve coverage, quality, and cost, both by caring for individual patients and by improving our systems. How? Coverage: by promoting a coordinated approach, beginning with state demonstrations of new safety net and individual and private insurance approaches. Quality: by adopting evidence-based practice and adapting practice guidelines for payment, beginning with non-payment for class III; by setting standards of practice below which we may not fall and paying for quality and service above this level; by involving patients as partners in their care and providing them with incentives. Cost: by challenging routine practices (why return in one year?); by beginning to address the widening gap between what is possible and what is affordable, taking part in broader discussions on what is worth the cost, supporting tort reform, and proposing alternatives; by improving our systems to reduce medical errors and addressing future physician shortages by working in teams with primary care physicians and nurses. Let's work with our patients to improve their health. Together we can make real progress.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed2004

The effectiveness of public health nursing: the problems and solutions in carrying out a review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: In 1999 the Scottish Office, United Kingdom, intimated that the Chief Nursing Officer would undertake a policy review of nurses' contribution to improving the public's health. The importance of reviewing the scientific literature on the effectiveness of public health nursing was recognized as a crucial part of the policy review. A final report was expected within a 6-month period. The reason for the short time period was to fit the policy-making schedule. This paper discusses our literature review for this work. AIMS: The aim was to conduct a review of the international scientific literature that gave the greatest coverage of the role and potential role of nurses in improving the public's health in relation to 14 major health topics. This paper describes the methods used, outlines the rationale underpinning the methods, discusses the problems encountered and offers solutions to some of these problems. METHODS: The initial search for relevant scientific literature revealed 709 suitable primary papers. Reviewing this number was beyond the time limit set by the funding organization. Therefore, a decision was made to concentrate on the evidence contained in systematic reviews. Reviewing systematic reviews raises a number of methodological problems to which there are often no predetermined solutions, such as ensuring that important interventions are included, assessing the relevance and quality of the reviews, and grading the strength of the evidence. DISCUSSION: Reviewing systematic reviews provides the scope to increase the number of topics that might be covered. However, it is possible that a number of interventions may be missed, particularly those that are not subject to review or those assessed using qualitative techniques. The definition of public health nursing used in the present study was also restrictive, and could be widened to include community interventions. Finally, assessing the quality of reviews and grading the evidence proved difficult and there is lack of consensus on how these tasks should be achieved. Nevertheless, the review presented policy makers with accessible information on a large number of relevant international studies.

Delivery of Health Care↗