Quality Improvement in Healthcare Practice: Case Study Analysis Report

This report examines quality improvement in healthcare practices, particularly within the Queensland healthcare system, focusing on the application of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle. It analyzes the limitations of previous annual reports and highlights the benefits of real-time data analysis in identifying and addressing inefficiencies, improving client documentation, and enhancing patient education. The report explores the use of indicators, such as those related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy complications, to assess and improve clinical outcomes. It emphasizes the importance of the PDSA cycle in iterative improvements, continuous review, and the integration of feedback to improve communication and engage healthcare practitioners. The report also underscores the role of quality improvement in promoting patient safety and the continuous monitoring of patient outcomes, ultimately contributing to a culture of transparency and accountability within the healthcare setting. The report references various scholarly articles and publications to support its findings.

Quality improvement in health care practice
By
Student’s Name
Course
Tutor
Institution
Date

2
Introduction
The fundamental tenet of quality and safety is a key factor in the overall permeation of health
care outcome. Quality in health care practice entails the degree at which the individual or the
population health services increases to specific health outcomes levels (Allen, Braithwaite,
Sandall & Waring , 2016). The institute of-of Medicine- IOM has floated a common phrase;
To Err Is Human, to illustrate that the majority of the health care errors often emanates from
faulty state and processes. Infection process in health care exhibit changes on the mix of the
patients and health care components such as the insurances, education and experience levels
and other factors surrounding health care practice. Safety practice is of essence in that it
changes processes which often lead to the predisposition of harm. Measuring health care
equity is essential in determining health care effects based on desired outcomes and degree of
health care adherence on evidence-based processes. Errors often occur due to failure of
systems and process to identify inefficiencies, ineffective care, and errors which could be
prevented in the overall health care system (Ball, Balogh & Miller, 2015). This report
highlights the occurrence of processes in health care in its overall role of failing to detection
levels which are fundamental in preventing harm and inefficiencies in the delivery of health
care. The general application of the quality improvement cycle will be adopted in this case
analysis to assess the improvement of health care towards effective positive health care
outcomes.
Health care issue
The health care delivery of Queensland in the p past has often depicted a trend and a culture
where dissemination of hospital-based reports on an annual basis. The report offered a cross-
sectional assessment of 12-month adjustment of risks on the outcome of health diseases and
the variation between intercostals and states. The reports proved not productive in the health
care due to its varied trends and the inability of providing timely data which offers room for
amendment and rectification of processes. In this case, statistical methodology for assessing
the clinical utility and the variable adjusted life display which offered systemic monitoring of
the patient's outcomes based on the actual and real-time data at the hospitals participating was
utilized.
Based on this approach of using variable life-adjusted display assessment, hospitals in
Queensland health care have been able to review and undertake various quality initiatives

3
using this methodology. The yield effect has been improvements on the overall significant
positive effect on the discharge of process, proper client documentation, improving patient
education and implementation of adherence of standards clinical pathways and effective
usage of resources. A fundamental tenet of this process entails effective indicators which are
relevant clinically in terms of disease burdens and clinical responsiveness. The utilization of
quality improvement cycle, in this case, entails the utilization of improvement or removal of
indicators, reviewing and implementing new indicators. Despite this significant improvement,
continuous process of revival of the development process is in progress.
A key example of an indicator applicable in this scenario entails management of laparoscopic
cholecystectomy complications during the surgery process during the third and fourth
perineal tears during the childbirth process. The indicators to be used are essential for the
examination of the data and review process. At this juncture, was a continuous review of
feedback, quality indicator, and definitions will be fundamental for the process.
This process is intended to assess the clinical improvement opportunities which will be
essential in the clinical review process of laparoscopic cholecystectomy management in
hospitals. This process will be essential in improving the overall process of health care
outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy process.
Application of Quality improvement cycle
Health care improvements of quality and safety in health care practice are an essential aspect
of positive health outcomes. Quality improvement processes methods such as plan so study
act has been used in the process to offer such improvements. This method which has been
adopted in this case study assessment aims to drive home such improvements in health care.
There is varied and mixed evidence which have undertaken studies on quality improvement
in health care practices; this evidence has shown that this intervention can be at times
effective in specific settings but not others (Nicolay et al., 2012).
It is fundamental to note that quality improvements in health care call for effective quality
improvement interventions and alterations of processes within health care systems over a
period of time offering both in diverse ways (Adler,Glymour & Fielding, 2016). An effective
approach to quality improvement is essential for development than the devaluation of
interventions which offers effective and high-value care.

4
Quality improvement cycles offer avenues for the iterative process which aims at inviting
positive changes on the overall health care process which is effective in bringing out
favorable outcomes. Usage and application of the Plan Do Study Act in this study are
essential. Various organizations such as the Institute of Health Care improvement have
utilized this approach for continual cycle improvement of health care processes. It is
imperative in its nature of impacting change in either small or frequent changes in health care
processes (Balasubramanian et al., 2015).
The PDSA methodological process follows a four-staged learning process which is essential
for adopting changes which are geared towards improving processes. In traditional setups,
health care research has often used methods such as randomized control trials as a key
intervention for advance assessment and variation in cooling or eliminating key factors in
quality care provision in health care practice (Reed & Card, 2016).
Studies have shown that small scale tests in quality improvement cycles are essential in
minimizing risks to the patients and the organization, scientific experimental process of
quality improvement cycle process is to offer outcome prediction and change tests and
assessment on the impact of intervention and measuring of outcomes. This enables learning
to be achieved through change tests (Cheung, Riblet, & Osunkoya, 2018).
Quality improvement cycle and utilization of PDSA has been shown to be important in
improving learning and reflection ensuring reflection and knowledge capturing the
organizational support and transfer of learning in various settings. A key aspect of quality
improvement cycles entails the use of indicators and measures. Studies have demonstrated
that the separation of these two key tools is essential in the care process (Kristine et al.,
2010).
Quality improvement is essential in overall patient safety and quality assessment and
promotion of stakeholders. Usage of quality improvement cycle in the assessment of
laparoscopic cholecystectomy has shown that improvement of quality is paramount and could
have a significant improvement on the importance of monitoring significant surgical issues of
the patient. Further, the PDSA cycle is beneficial in the process that it leads to continuous
reviews and documentation of the process.
Application of quality advances in health care practices has been an essential aspect in
ensuring there is clear clinical communication which they ensure there is an effective

5
communication process. Regular monitoring of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgical
process in this case study is geared towards an ongoing monitoring of patient outcomes and
tracking changes over which ensures that there is continuous improvement of process in the
manner in which adverse events and risks are occurring (Lavallee et al., 2016).
PDSA cycle is essential in improving communications and improvements in the overall
feedback process and allows reason to changing circumstances and ensuring continuous
engagement in health care practices. Engagement with health care practitioners is essential as
it allows for relevant workforces for quality improvement processes (Davey & Cole, 2015).
An effective process on improving health care outcomes is paramount in providing review
and monitoring quality improvements on processes. Quality improvement aspects in health
care call for continuous actions which ensure that there are continuous actions which improve
the overall clinical communications systems. More often studies have e indicated that data
obtained from continuous improvement processes were crucial for the clinician’s and health
care workforce in improving and providing strong support for practice change and
improvement opportunities in the health care. Further, the feedback process will be crucial in
contributing to overall cultural transparency and accountability.
Conclusion
Utilization of plan, do, study and act application in quality improvement processes is
essential in health care practices. This tool identifies key issues in health care geared towards
implementing the agreed plan, studies the overall process and act on the development of new
standards identified in the cycle. Quality improvement has been observed as a crucial aspect
for systematic review and formal approach to analysis in improving overall performers.
Implementing this quality improvement cycle in the area of laparoscopic cholecystectomy
complications management process will be crucial in improving the efficiency, improving
patient safety and overall clinical outcomes of the patients. Thus implementing a quality
improvement mechanism in these scenarios is essential to improve the overall management
and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Queensland health
facility.

6
Reference
Adler, N.E., Glymour, M.M. and Fielding, J., 2016. Addressing social determinants of health
and health inequalities. Jama, 316(16), pp.1641-1642.
Allen, D., Braithwaite, J., Sandall, J. and Waring, J., 2016. Towards a sociology of healthcare
safety and quality. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(2), pp.181-197.
Balasubramanian, B.A., Cohen, D.J., Davis, M.M., Gunn, R., Dickinson, L.M., Miller, W.L.,
Crabtree, B.F. and Stange, K.C., 2015. Learning evaluation: blending quality improvement
and implementation research methods to study healthcare innovations. Implementation
Science, 10(1), p.31.
Ball, J., Balogh, E. and Miller, B.T. eds., 2015. Improving diagnosis in health care. National
Academies Press.
Cheung, Y.Y., Riblet, N.B. and Osunkoya, T.O., 2018. Use of Iterative Cycles in Quality
Improvement Projects in Imaging: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American College of
Radiology.
Davey, N. and Cole, A., 2015. Safe communication design, implement and measure: A guide
to improving transfers of care and handover Quality Improvement Clinic.
Lavallee, D.C., Chenok, K.E., Love, R.M., Petersen, C., Holve, E., Segal, C.D. and Franklin,
P.D., 2016. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and
enhance care. Health Affairs, 35(4), pp.575-582.
Nicolay, C.R., Purkayastha, S., Greenhalgh, A., Benn, J., Chaturvedi, S., Phillips, N. and
Darzi, A., 2012. Systematic review of the application of quality improvement methodologies
from the manufacturing industry to surgical healthcare. British Journal of Surgery, 99(3),
pp.324-335.
Reed, J.E. and Card, A.J., 2016. The problem with plan-do-study-act cycles. BMJ Qual Saf,
25(3), pp.147-152.

7
Sketcher‐Baker, K.M., Kamp, M.C., Connors, J.A., Martin, D.J. and Collins, J.E., 2010.
Using the quality improvement cycle on clinical indicators—improve or remove?. Medical
Journal of Australia, 193, pp.S104-S106.