A Next Step: Reviewer Feedback on Quality Improvement Publication Guidelines
Author(s) -
Tom Janisse
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
the permanente journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.445
H-Index - 30
eISSN - 1552-5775
pISSN - 1552-5767
DOI - 10.7812/tpp/06-152
Subject(s) - medicine , quality (philosophy) , quality management , data science , information retrieval , medical physics , computer science , operations management , management system , philosophy , epistemology , economics
Technology and Process Improvement Dazzled by advances in surgical lasers, the anti-aging drug reservatrol, or Google’s warpspeed search of the earth’s information on their handheld computers, physicians and nurses may dismiss the significance of their recent diabetic and cardiac quality improvement (QI) work that arguably improves health care more than many technologic advances. Despite the intensity of designing and enacting QI studies to improve the processes, reliability, and safety of medical care, doctors and nurses have historically not captured or reported their data and findings with enough systematic rigor to turn your head from the brilliance of technology or the randomized, controlled, drug trials reported online and in the media even before print publication. Their work, however, is critical because embedding and integrating new knowledge into clinical practice through quality improvement work is ultimately the outcome that will improve the state of this country’s health care.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom