A study into the effectiveness of quality management training:a focus on tools and critical success factors

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of quality management training by reviewing commonly used critical success factors and tools rather than the overall methodological approach. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology used a web-based questionnaire. It consisted of 238 questions covering 77 tools and 30 critical success factors selected from leading academic and practitioner sources. The survey had 79 usable responses and the data were analysed using relevant statistical quality management tools. The results were validated in a series of structured workshops with quality management experts. Findings – Findings show that in general most of the critical success factor statements for quality management are agreed with, although not all are implemented well. The findings also show that many quality tools are not known or understood well; and that training has an important role in raising their awareness and making sure they are used correctly. Research limitations/implications – Generalisations are limited by the UK-centric nature of the sample. Practical implications – The practical implications are discussed for organisations implementing quality management initiatives, training organisations revising their quality management syllabi and academic institutions teaching quality management. Originality/value – Most recent surveys have been aimed at methodological levels (i.e. “lean”, “Six Sigma”, “total quality management” etc.); this research proposes that this has limited value as many of the tools and critical success factors are common to most of the methodologies. Therefore, quite uniquely, this research focuses on the tools and critical success factors. Additionally, other recent comparable surveys have been less comprehensive and not focused on training issues.

Rebuilding the city:a focus for European industrial policy?

While the city offers the potential of dynamic agglomeration economies which can spur the achievement of economic growth and act as an engine that powers the economy, it often appears as a centre of crisis in mature ‘developed’ regions and countries, even before the most recent economic downturn. This paper attempts to reconcile these two seemingly paradoxical observations by bringing in a strategic choice perspective to explain how concentrated strategic decision making in the corporate entities that dominate our cities has diminished the very diversity that Jacobs identified as being essential for cities to flourish and develop. The industrial policy implications for cities are subsequently explored in terms of building new industrial districts, developing high skill ecosystems, and fostering multinational webs of cities, all with the aim of ensuring the conditions exist in cities for creativity and development to flourish, notably a diverse and democratic economic system.

Focus group method and methodology:current practice and recent debate

This paper considers the contemporary use of focus groups as a method of data collection within qualitative research settings. The authors draw upon their own experiences of using focus groups in educational and 'community' user-group environments in order to provide an overview of recent issues and debates surrounding the deployment of focus group methods and to pick out specific areas of contention in relation to both their epistemological and practical implications. Accordingly, the paper reflects on some of the realities of 'doing' focus groups whilst, at the same time, highlighting common problems and dilemmas which beginning researchers might encounter in their application. In turn, the paper raises a number of related issues around which there appears to have been a lack of academic discussion to date.

Patient involvement in primary care mental health:a focus group study

Background: Patient involvement in health care is a strong political driver in the NHS. However in spite of policy prominence, there has been only limited previous work exploring patient involvement for people with serious mental illness. Aim: To describe the views on, potential for, and types of patient involvement in primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness. Design of study: Qualitative study consisting of six patient, six health professional and six combined focus groups between May 2002 and January 2003. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands, England. Method: Forty-five patients with serious mental illness, 39 GPs, and eight practice nurses participated in a series of 18 focus groups. All focus groups were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Nvivo was used to manage data more effectively. Results: Most patients felt that only other people with lived experience of mental illness could understand what they were going through. This experience could be used to help others navigate the health- and social-care systems, give advice about medication, and offer support at times of crisis. Many patients also saw paid employment within primary care as a way of addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion. Health professionals were, however, more reluctant to see patients as partners, be it in the consultation or in service delivery. Conclusions: Meaningful change in patient involvement requires commitment and belief from primary care practitioners that the views and experiences of people with serious mental illness are valid and valuable.

Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness:focus group study

Objective: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.

Can aberrometry provide rapid and reliable measures of subjective depth of focus following multifocal intraocular lens implantation?

Purpose: To determine whether the ‘through-focus’ aberrations of a multifocal and accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) implanted patient can be used to provide rapid and reliable measures of their subjective range of clear vision. Methods: Eyes that had been implanted with a concentric (n = 8), segmented (n = 10) or accommodating (n = 6) intraocular lenses (mean age 62.9 ± 8.9 years; range 46-79 years) for over a year underwent simultaneous monocular subjective (electronic logMAR test chart at 4m with letters randomised between presentations) and objective (Aston open-field aberrometer) defocus curve testing for levels of defocus between +1.50 to -5.00DS in -0.50DS steps, in a randomised order. Pupil size and ocular aberration (a combination of the patient’s and the defocus inducing lens aberrations) at each level of blur was measured by the aberrometer. Visual acuity was measured subjectively at each level of defocus to determine the traditional defocus curve. Objective acuity was predicted using image quality metrics. Results: The range of clear focus differed between the three IOL types (F=15.506, P=0.001) as well as between subjective and objective defocus curves (F=6.685, p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between subjective and objective defocus curves in the segmented or concentric ring MIOL group (P>0.05). However a difference was found between the two measures and the accommodating IOL group (P<0.001). Mean Delta logMAR (predicted minus measured logMAR) across all target vergences was -0.06 ± 0.19 logMAR. Predicted logMAR defocus curves for the multifocal IOLs did not show a near vision addition peak, unlike the subjective measurement of visual acuity. However, there was a strong positive correlation between measured and predicted logMAR for all three IOLs (Pearson’s correlation: P<0.001). Conclusions: Current subjective procedures are lengthy and do not enable important additional measures such as defocus curves under differently luminance or contrast levels to be assessed, which may limit our understanding of MIOL performance in real-world conditions. In general objective aberrometry measures correlated well with the subjective assessment indicating the relative robustness of this technique in evaluating post-operative success with segmented and concentric ring MIOL.

FOCUS : frailty management optimisation through EIPAHA commitments and utilisation of stakeholders’ input – an innovative European project in elderly care

The goal of FOCUS, which stands for Frailty Management Optimization through EIPAHA Commitments and Utilization of Stakeholders’ Input, is to reduce the burden of frailty in Europe. The partners are working on advancing knowledge of frailty detection, assessment, and management, including biological, clinical, cognitive and psychosocial markers, in order to change the paradigm of frailty care from acute intervention to prevention. FOCUS partners are working on ways to integrate the best available evidence from frailty-related screening tools, epidemiological and interventional studies into the care of frail people and their quality of life. Frail citizens in Italy, Poland and the UK and their caregivers are being called to express their views and their experiences with treatments and interventions aimed at improving quality of life. The FOCUS Consortium is developing pathways to leverage the knowledge available and to put it in the service of frail citizens. In order to reach out to the broadest audience possible, the FOCUS Platform for Knowledge Exchange and the platform for Scaling Up are being developed with the collaboration of stakeholders. The FOCUS project is a development of the work being done by the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIPAHA), which aims to increase the average healthy lifespan in Europe by 2020 while fostering sustainability of health/social care systems and innovation in Europe. The knowledge and tools developed by the FOCUS project, with input from stakeholders, will be deployed to all EIPAHA participants dealing with frail older citizens to support activities and optimize performance.