A qualitative analysis of leadership styles and the selection of quality improvement in primary care practice

In the Practice Change Model, physicians act as key stakeholders, people who have both an investment in the practice and the capacity to influence how the practice performs. This leadership role is critical to the development and change of the practice. Leadership roles and effectiveness are an important factor in quality improvement in primary care practices.^ The study conducted involved a comparative case study analysis to identify leadership roles and the relationship between leadership roles and the number and type of quality improvement strategies adopted during a Practice Change Model-based intervention study. The research utilized secondary data from four primary care practices with various leadership styles. The practices are located in the San Antonio region and serve a large Hispanic population. The data was collected by two ABC Project Facilitators from each practice during a 12-month period including Key Informant Interviews (all staff members), MAP (Multi-method Assessment Process), and Practice Facilitation field notes. This data was used to evaluate leadership styles, management within the practice, and intervention tools that were implemented. The chief steps will be (1) to analyze if the leader-member relations contribute to the type of quality improvement strategy or strategies selected (2) to investigate if leader-position power contributes to the number of strategies selected and the type of strategy selected (3) and to explore whether the task structure varies across the four primary care practices.^ The research found that involving more members of the clinic staff in decision-making, building bridges between organizational staff and clinical staff, and task structure are all associated with the direct influence on the number and type of quality improvement strategies implemented in primary care practice.^ Although this research only investigated leadership styles of four different practices, it will offer future guidance on how to establish the priorities and implementation of quality improvement strategies that will have the greatest impact on patient care improvement. ^

Patient satisfaction in government health facilities in the state of Qatar

This study provides data which can contribute to improving services and delivering quality health care in government health facilities in the state of Qatar. To measure the satisfaction with current care of selected patients who receive care in Hamad General Hospital and the Khalifa Town Health Center in the city of Doha, a cross-sectional survey and a self-administered questionnaire were used.^ Analysis was performed on data from 444 patients on eight dimensions of patient satisfaction with medical care. These include: general satisfaction, availability of services, convenience of services, facilities, humaneness of doctors, quality of care, continuity of care, and aspects of the last visit. Patient satisfaction parameters were compared for males vs. females, for citizens vs. non-citizens, and for patients seen in the hospital vs. those seen in the health center.^ Results indicate that patients seen in the hospital were more satisfied with care than patients seen in the health center, that non-citizens were more satisfied than citizens, and that males were slightly more satisfied than females with medical services. ^

Quality assessment in radiation oncology

Oncologic specialty societies and multidisciplinary collaborative groups have dedicated considerable effort to developing evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) to facilitate quality improvement, accreditation, benchmarking, reimbursement, maintenance of certification, and regulatory reporting. In particular, radiation oncology as a field has a long history of organized quality assessment efforts, and continues to work toward developing consensus quality standards in the face of continually evolving technologies and standards of care. The present report provides a comprehensive review of the current state of quality assessment in radiation oncology, with an emphasis on recent quality improvement efforts. Specifically, this report aims to highlight implications of the healthcare quality movement for radiation oncology and review existing efforts to define and measure quality in the field, with particular focus on dimensions of quality that are specific to radiation oncology within the "big picture" of oncologic quality improvement efforts.^