Introduction
Health care is the industry that involves many domains and has to fulfil multiple duties. The level of responsibility in this industry is very high since it is accountable for the population’s health. As a result, the issues that exist within health care are diverse and complex. The primary focus of this assignment is the concept of quality management and the importance of quality improvement in health care. As pointed out by Hall, Moore, and Barnsteiner (2008), “Continuous quality improvement is based on the concept that improvement comes from building knowledge and applying it appropriately” (Barnsteiner, 2008, par. 1). In other words, the improvement of quality is associated with the provision of the type care that is more cost-effective. The primary approaches to quality improvement involve the systematic methods and the collaboration of the professionals coming from various fields and backgrounds (Draper, Felland, Liebhaber, & Melichar, 2008). Elaborating on the subject, first of all, this paper will present the definition and explanation of the concept of quality improvement. Secondly, the discussion will be conducted concerning the quality improvement approaches (such as TQM, CQI, PDSA, FADE, and LEAN). Further, the exploration of the topic will move on to the importance of quality improvement in the field of health care. Finally, the roles of Australian commission of safety and quality and health care (ACSQHC) will be described and long with the role of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Namely, the last sections will concentrate on the improvement of safety and service practices in the health care institutions and facilities (Barnsteiner, 2008).
Concept of Quality Improvement
Batalden and Davidoff (2007) propose the following definition of the concept of quality improvement: “the combined and unceasing efforts of everyone—healthcare professionals, patients and their families, researchers, payers, planners and educators—to make the changes that will lead to better patient outcomes (health), better system performance (care) and better professional development” (Batalden & Davidoff, 2007, p. 2). Besides, HRSA (2011) mentions that the actions within quality improvement are to be systematic and constant in order to ensure the successful change in quality. Also, the improvement needs to be measurable so that its effectiveness, pace, and advantages could be assessed and evaluated in terms of efficacy.
The main goals of quality improvement (QI) include such tasks as moving the patient satisfaction and care to the next level, reduction of the health care costs, and the improvement of the population’s health (Weston & Roberts, 2013). QI works through a variety of specially designed programs that target different issues of this area; for instance, some of the focuses of the most recent changes and innovation in health care are the integration of technologies and the newest equipment (which always involves the training and education of the staff), holistic approach and the inclusion of the patients and their families (the interaction with local and regional communities for a purpose of collaborative care), cross-disciplinary approach (the connection between the practitioners from various professional backgrounds) (Weston & Roberts, 2013).
The quality improvement initiatives are some of the primary drivers of change in health care. Haughom (2016) elaborates on the Deming principles of the health care process improvement calling the QI the “science of process management” (Haughom, 2016, par. 2). The initial focus of the Deming principles was the provision a framework for the health care organisations to be able to handle the complex and multi-dimensional challenges that frequently arise in this rapid developing field. The principles of the QI are applicable not only to health care but to all the major industries in the world generating impressive results. In fact, health care is one of the few industries that were the slowest to embrace the QI and what it had to offer (Haughom, 2016).
Knowing the how complex and multifaceted the field of health care is, the most effective approach to its quality improvement is the focus on its processes one by one. However, due to the multitude of processes this method is likely to turn out rather time-consuming (Haughom, 2016). That is why the main objective of the QI managers is to identify which processes require change the most and have the capacity to generate the best result in terms of improvement (Haughom, 2016). In other words, the optimisation of the most influential processes is the key to the fastest and most effective change.
Quality Improvement Approaches
There are several approaches to the improvement of quality which is rather convenient because the institutions willing to raise their performance level have an opportunity of researching various strategies of quality improvement and choosing the most suitable one (Haughom, 2016).
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Faloudah, Qasim, and Bahumayd (2015) state that “Total quality management refers to the management strategy that involves all organisational functions i.e. design sales and marketing, engineering, production, finance, marketing and customer care service with the aim of satisfying customers and achieving the vision and mission of the organisation” (Faloudah et al., 2015, p. 22). The TQM used to be mainly employed in the industries specialised in the production of tangible goods; however, recently, it began to be implemented in the service-oriented industries as well (Faloudah et al., 2015). In TQM, the managers’ effort is combined with that of the employees for a purpose of addressing the quality in every direction. The activities practiced within the TQM framework are the teamwork improvement, meeting the needs of the clients, the optimisation of time needed for the completion of tasks and required for putting the change into practice, the increase in the business planning efficiency, and the empowerment of workers (Faloudah et al., 2015).
Continuous Quality Improvement Approach (CQI)
Since health care is the field characterised by rapid change and development, the implementation of quality improvement strategies there can be rather challenging due to the fact that some changes create barriers to the improvement practices (Leebov & Ersoz, 2003; Burkoski & Yoon, 2013). At the same time, there are changes that speed up the process of improvement (such as the technological progress and the integration of the new equipment for example). All in all, Leebov and Ersoz (2003) define change as “the moving target” and point out that in most cases the implementation of change may not turn out effective without its maintenance. This is why CQI approach has been developed. Continuous improvement is put into practice via the improvement of the working processes of people instead of focusing on the shortcomings of work (Leebov & Ersoz, 2003; Burkoski & Yoon, 2013). In other words, people are to be the focus of change in order for it to be continuous. This strategy is implemented using four domains such as customers (or patients whose needs are the drivers of the improvement), performance (the concentration on the patient-centred approach), process (minimisation of barriers to improvement and the creation of harmonious and pleasurable workplace environment), and culture (the introduction of practices that support continuous improvement – feedback provision, mentoring, empowerment) (Leebov & Ersoz, 2003).
Plan-Do-Study-Act Approach (PDSA)
PDSA is an effective instrument for the acceleration of the QI. This approach includes four steps: plan, do, study, and act (AHRQ, 2008). The first step involves planning and data collection that could be conducted in a form of an observation or a test; once the first part is done and the objectives are set, and the measures and determinants of change are established, the second step begins. It is focused on the implementation of the plan using a test environment or a smaller group (such as one department for example) (AHRQ, 2008). The trial will show whether or not the model is effective and which adjustments it may require. Further, the results of the testing are studied. Finally, the refined model is worked out and prepared for an application. PDSA is a strategy oriented at the practice-based learning (AHRQ, 2008).
Importance of Quality Improvement in Health Care
Health care institutions are to maintain the quality standards on the high level in order to deliver reliable services and stay on top of the competition in the industry (Faloudah et al., 2015). The services delivered by medical facilities and the duties they have are directly connected to people’s health and wellbeing. In other words, the quality is to be high in order to save lives of the patients instead of producing harm. As a result, many hospitals and medical centres employ departments and offices that particularly specialise in the improvement of quality (Faloudah et al., 2015).
The significance of enhancing the quality of the services provided is quite evident. First, ensuring quality in healthcare is one of the primary responsibilities of the staff according to the current healthcare ethics standards (NSW, 2014). Moreover, it is important to make sure that the process of information management in the healthcare environment should be uninterrupted and consistent due to the complexity of the healthcare system. The latter implies that the corresponding services should be administered to the members of the public, private and the not-for-profit health sector in a timely and efficient manner, hence the need to introduce cooperation and enhance the efficacy of the staff.
One more reason for the QI practices to be in place is that the dissatisfied customers are likely to share their negative experiences with the other individuals that thus reduce the number of the potential clients of the facilities driving down the overall reputation of the institutions and weakening their image as organisations (Faloudah et al., 2015). Health care, just like many of the other service and people-oriented industries, depends on the trust of the consumers. This way, once some of the patients face negative experiences and feel dissatisfaction, the information about this would be spread very fast. This tendency is one of the disadvantages of the information era of ubiquitous connectedness and extremely high rates of the user activity on social networks (Faloudah et al., 2015). One negative comment or post about low-quality services at an organisation could do a large amount of damage to its reputation.
However, one must bear in mind that the increase in healthcare quality implies significant challenges for clinicians, administrators and policy makers. Consequently, a redesign of the current system and the update of the technology and treatment must be viewed as a necessary step to take (Faloudah et al., 2015).
Moreover, another cause of the need for the quality improvement practices in health care is accreditation (NSW, 2014). Since the field of health care and medicine is rather competitive, the institutions are to raise their capacities in order to insure trust of the patients, earn reputation, expand as organisations, and outperform the rival facilities (Faloudah et al., 2015).
Finally, one of the major issues in the contemporary health care is financing and expenditures. This problem is being researched and assessed in many countries all around the world. Two of the most visible outcomes of it are the misuse or overuse of the medical services and practices that lead to either the waste of resources and costs or to the underserving of the patients (Teleki, Damberg, Reville, 2003). Both of these tendencies are highly harmful to the industry and require an immediate response. Some of the countries (such as the USA) address it through the standardisation of health care services that would optimise the expenditures and allow an easier measurement of the result. However, along with all the benefits, this strategy carries some disadvantages because each case is unique and requires an individual approach which is not always possible due to the strict limitations and policies of the standardised care (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2016).
Roles of Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC)
ACSQHC outlines ten major standards as the most important aspects of the service delivery in the Australian health care industry such as governance for quality and safety in health organisations, cooperating with the patients, controlling and averting healthcare acquired infections, medication safety, patient and procedure identification and matching, clinical handover to name a few (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2012).
The National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) Standards serve as the drivers and stimuli of the implementation of safety and quality systems and the QI quality of health care in Australia (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2016). National priorities provide the necessary guideline for the Australian health care to move forwards and improve the areas that need change the most (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2016). Safety and quality indicators are in place to outline the measurements of the QI and service provision practices, and raise the level of transparency and accountability of the providers (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2016).
Moreover, when it comes to the role of ACSQHC to supervise the licensing and accreditation standards, the organisation’s duties and obligations often overlap with those of the regional governments (OECD, 2015). ACSQHC plays an important role when it accomplishes the communication with the governments for a purpose to provide necessary recommendations as to the policies and regulations concerning the problems within accreditation and licensing. In particular, ACSQHC takes care of the issues of consistency in the standards of the previously mentioned activities (OECD, 2015). One of the most recent tendencies that refer to the employment and implementation of the consistence accreditation and licensing standards that would not differ based on regions was to establish a national agenda and a standardized system with an institution in charge (OECD, 2015).
Ever since ACSQHC became responsible for the licensing and accreditation regulations, there has been an opinion that this role implemented by ACSQHC has made the health care system in Australia more complicated (OECD, 2015). One of the primary issues was the overlap of the duties of the regional government and the ACSQHC; to be more precise, the standards and the provision of the performance oversight was the key issue because it is still unclear which institution is to carry out this functions – the ACSQHC or the regional government (OECD, 2015). In turn, the confusion in the responsibilities and accountability is likely to result in the decrease in the performance of some of the health care facilities and organizations. In this scenario, it would not be clear who is to be held accountable for the health care institutions that demonstrate low-quality performance.
Roles of Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
As specified on the website of the Victoria State Government (2015), “Victorian health services aim to meet or exceed quality and safety standards and seek continual service improvement to ensure our health sector provides world-class care. This endeavour is supported by rigorous systems and standards” (Victoria State Government, 2015, par. 1). The roles of DHHS are multiple and directed at various areas of health care. Some of them include the controlling of quality and safety of the medication administration, accreditation of the health care institutions, conducting research as to the patient experience and satisfaction, management of the clinical risks and threats, the promotion of healthy lifestyle to the population and the improvement of health care literacy, the facilitation of the clinical networks and links between the practitioners from different professional fields (Victoria State Government, 2015). In addition, DHHS employs Victoria’s Redesigning Hospital Care Program that specialises on the reorganisation of the hospital framework making it more efficient and sustainable in terms of patient care and experiences (Victoria State Government, 2015). Thus program is focused on the restructuring of operations typically employed by the hospitals for a purpose to make them more efficient and eliminate the haste and confusion that may occur in working environment with a lot of stress and sudden situations where the employees need to react immediately
Conclusion
Quality improvement is recognised as the combined effort of the stakeholders of different areas – researchers, clinical workforce, patients and their families, service providers, health care leaders and managers – for a purpose to raise the standards of service provision, improve patient experience and outcomes, and ensure a better rate of safety and accountability in health care (Batalden & Davidoff, 2007). Quality improvement is a complex concept that has been established and defined fairly recently. This concept has been in use in a variety of different professional fields. However, the health care industry turned out one of the latter fields to embrace it (Haughom, 2016). In reality, the improvement of quality in health care is a very complicated process that requires the coordination of multiple operations and groups of professionals addressing various areas. Quality improvement carries out several roles for health care industry; the primary ones focus on the reduction of risks and threats to the patients’ health, the optimisation of operations in order to minimise the costs of services, and to raise the performance level of the health care facilities as businesses (Faloudah et al., 2015; Aveta Business Institute, n. d.). In Australian health care, ACSQHC and DHHC play a multitude of roles when it comes of the quality improvement at various levels and dimensions such as networks, research, accreditation, health promotion, service delivery, and reshaping of the systems and strategies. The complicatedness of the QI in health care is addressed with the help of cooperation of the practitioners from different fields and the organisation of effort at all the major directions that need change.
Clinical Communication
Introduction
Interactions between clinical professionals in reference to the provision of health care is an extremely important aspect of the health care delivery; at the same time, it is rather complex. In fact, the clinical communication lies at the basis of the professional teamwork that, in turn, in the key to a high-quality patient experience and satisfaction (Woods et al., n. d.). Regardless of the importance of communication among the clinical practitioners, the processes that serve as its main drivers remain understudied and are often overlooked as focuses that could become the necessary ground for the quality improvement (Woods et al., n. d.). Besides, when it comes the clinical communication, it is vital to remember the fact that just like the improvement of it may produce positive results on the level of care quality, its failure is likely to lead to negative patient outcomes and risks (Parker & Coiera, 2000). The ACSQHC has clinical communication as one of its primary focuses. After the research conducted by the organisation, it was revealed that one of the key barriers to the successful clinical communication and handover was the pragmatic attitude of the practitioners who were not sure whether or not that something was wrong with the habitual practices of the information handover (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2011). This part of the paper will focus on the concept of clinical communication and provide its detailed explanation; it will also elaborate on the practices presented in the OSSIE guide to clinical handover improvement. The further sections of the paper will explore the meaning of organisational change and the change management theory.
Clinical Communication
Concept and Definition
The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (2007) provides the definition of clinical communication that identifies it as the transfer of the professional information and responsibility for all the aspects of a patient’s history and health (entirely or partly); the transfer is accomplished between two or more professionals and is done temporarily or regularly. When it comes to the purpose of clinical communication, its main focus is to share accurate, appropriate, and relevant information about patients in order to achieve the best patient outcomes (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2007). Staff to staff communication failures and errors have been researched specifically in Queensland and the study found that twenty percent of all the sentinel clinical cases can be associated with the clinical communication issues (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2007).
In addition to the communication between the staff members and practitioners, there is another type of clinical communication – that is between a clinician and a patient (Patient-Clinician Communication, 2016). This type of interaction is central to the concept of the integration of patients in the care process and implementation of the patient-centred approach to care. In terms of this type of clinical communication, Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (2007) found that the risk of the communication failure or errors grew dramatically in the cases where multiple medical practitioners were in communication with the patient at the same time. Since communication is a rather personal and unique process that differs significantly depending on a multitude of factors, the clinical settings involving various individuals showed different impacts on the communication. To be more precise, some of the most influential factors that produced effects on the communication were the hierarchy and positions of the interacting professionals, their age, background, language issues, social diversity and cultural aspects, as well as their specialties (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2007).
Alpert (2012) outlines some of the most important barriers to communication as well; they involve lack of attention while listening (this factor concerns both types of clinical communication – that conducted between two professionals and that of a practitioner and a patient), distractions, the use of complicated language that could have been omitted in order to clarify the situation and ensure better understanding, ineffective mentoring, report, or information presentation, and reluctance to ask questions (often dictated by the fear of seeming inexperienced or not knowledgeable) (Alpert, 2012).
Importance in Health Care
Atherton, Chisholm, Rutter, Peters, and Fletcher (2009) point out that the communication between a clinician and a patient is an important part of the holistic approach as it involves threating not just the body affected by a disease but also the spirit, the emotional, and psychological aspects of the human being. One more reason why clinical communication is so important is quite obvious – it is the delivery and provision of information. During the communication, the two parties share knowledge that each of them may find useful (Atherton et al., 2009). For instance, speaking to a patient, the clinician gathers the necessary information for the further assessment and diagnosing; at the same time, the patient has an opportunity to learn about their condition and its prevention techniques, and the necessary information about the medication and treatment for the future recovery (Atherton et al., 2009).
The OSSIE Guide to Clinical Handover Improvement
OSSIE stands for organisational leadership, simple solution development, stakeholder engagement, implementation, evaluation and maintenance (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2010). This guide includes five phases each of which is divided in several steps of organisation, implementation, and management. The guide is rather thorough and takes into consideration multiple aspects of change in the handover practices addressing a variety of processes.
OSSIE guide is important because it is oriented at the provision of the necessary guideline for the organisations to be able to achieve the change expected in the contemporary health care industry (such as the reduction of working hours of some staff members for a purpose to minimise the rates of fatigue and stress) (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2010). Since these tasks are complex and it is not always clear how to achieve the goals without harming the organisation or disrupting its working process and operations, OSSIE guide contains clear policies and specific recommendation for the organisations to follow and achieve their change objectives faster and without issues. Overall, the guide is an extremely valuable tool for the organisations in the field of health care that are in a constant need for change. The problem is that this need is difficult to address due to the complexity of the operations conducted within the organisations.
Organisational Change
Just like in any other industry, the implementation of change in health care is designed to stimulate an organisational improvement also is likely to result in a disruption of operations and frustration of the workforce. Due to this reason, the planning and implementation of organisational change are to be carefully assessed and tested before being put into practice (Change management plan workbook and template, n. d.).
Organisational change is facilitated by the transformations in the industries and professional environments of the institutions and put into practice for a purpose of improving the performance and productivity of the company and the maximisation of the results and services (Jones, 2012). Attempting to accomplish their missions in more successful ways, the healthcare organisations may implement change according to two different strategies. The first approach to change is known as revolutionary; and it is characterised by drastic shifts in operations, policies, and structures; such change occurs fast and is stimulated by the external factors such as growth of the competition, or a change in the market (Jones, 2012). The second approach is recognised as evolutionary; and it is much more step-by-step and happens at a slower pace, besides, in comparison to to the revolutionary change which affects all areas of an organisation, evolutionary one may cover just one area (Jones, 2012).
Weiner (2009) points out that for the change to go effectively and bring the expected advantages, an organisation needs to be prepared for its implementation. This state of being prepared to change is known as readiness for change, and it can be created. Weiner (2009) explains that there are two aspects of readiness required – people and resources. There is change that occurs due to the individual readiness of the staff members. This tendency takes place because any transformation in the organisational policies, strategies, plans, or structures is implemented with the help of the change in the behaviours and perceptions of the employees. As a result, if the workforce is not ready, not willing, or no capable of changing its patterns, the anticipated organisational transformation would not occur or would result in a failure. There are multiple ways of preparing the organisation for the change, and most of them are related to the psychology of the employees (Weiner, 2009).
While the people of an organisation may be prepared and willing to change, there is another practical side to it that would serve as a barrier if there is no preparedness there – the resources (NHS, 2007). Having resources ready for change means accumulating enough costs to invest in change, acquiring all the necessary equipment, premises, and technologies, and also having time and space to implement the organisational transformation (NHS, 2007).
Change Management Theory
As explained by Mitchell (2013), the change theory developed by Kurt Lewin includes three stages in total; they are unfreesing (the preparation of change, testing, planning, assessing), moving (the implementation of change plan), and refreesing (the change is done and needs to be maintained and managed). This model is widely applicable in a variety of industries and fields and health care is one of them. This model provides a universal outline for the planning, implementation, and maintenance of change. Each of the stages has specific purposes and tasks so that the change and its effectiveness can be tracked at every step and evaluated in terms of the need for adjustments (Mitchell, 2013).
Apart from Lewin’s model, there is another well-known framework for change. This model was created specifically as detailed outline of the actions that need to be employed for an organisaton to achieve change harmoniously and gradually. Kotter’s model of change involves eight steps. Step one is creating urgency (psychologically preparing the organisation to change and persuading the staff that it is really necessary so that all the employees are at the same page when it comes to the desire to transform); step two is establishing a coalition (finding a strong leader and a team of executives who would maintain integrity to change throughout all the transformation process in order for the rest of the organisation not to lose interest); step three is building vision for change (outlining the main objectives of change, creating a path-goal plan for better clarity); step four is to explain the vision (communicating the goals and pathways to the employees); the fifth step is to eliminate obstacles (addressing the present barriers to change); step six is to plant short-term wins (having multiple milestones will allow a clearer idea of moving forward); the seventh step requires building on the change (analysing every step and every milestone); finally the eighth step is to anchor the change (maintaining the results that are already achieved) (Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model, 2016)
OSSIE Guide Critique
As it was mentioned earlier in the paper, OSSIE guide contains five stages that are organisational leadership, simple solution development, stakeholder engagement, implementation, evaluation and maintenance (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2010). These five steps could be compared to the steps within the model developed by Kotter. Contrasting the two approaches, it is possible to notice that OSSIE’s stages of organisational leadership and the simple solution development match the stages two and three in the model created by Kotter (that are establishing a strong coalition and building a vision for change accordingly). However, the first step of Kotter’s model (the creation of urgency) is skipped in OSSIE guide. It is interesting to think about this difference. It may be that the change in a health care organisation is quite needed and urgent without any specific procedures that would inform the staff about its necessity.
The step of stakeholder engagement can be compared to building and explaining the vision in the model by Kotter as these steps involve the communication with the groups of employees involved and the clarification of the further path of change (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2010). Kotter’s steps of building and anchoring the change can be compared to the step of maintenance in OSSIE guide because they basically have the same purposes and tasks – making the change stick and supporting the achieved positive results. Finally, each of the steps in OSSIE guide is subdivided into three more stages that resemble those of Lewin’s model (unfreesing, moving, refreesing) – objectives, evaluation, tools and techniques (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2010). Overall, the gradual preparation of each step, the implementation, and the further evaluation are a very clever approach as they place the smaller milestones and provide very clear directions for the organisations and managers willing to put change into practice but struggling to arrange the appropriate framework for that.
The guide is aimed at detailing the instructions regarding the process of handing the patient’s case over to another clinician: “Dangers include discontinuity of care, adverse events and legal claims of malpractice” (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2010, p. 2). There is no secret that the process of transferring the patient from one unit of care to another is beyond complicated, mainly due to the necessity to retain all data intact. Therefore, it is crucial that the process of information management should occur in the manner as efficient and expeditious as possible. OSSIE, in its turn, outlines the issues that clinicians are currently facing. More importantly, the guide suggests a set of measures that can be adopted to manage certain issues in the handover process.
It is also essential that the guide provides extensive resources for managing the issues emerging in the course of the handover process. The guide suggests that the clinicians should acquire the information necessary for carrying out the handover practice in an appropriate manner. Thus, the prerequisite for increasing the quality of healthcare services is created. Moreover, the tools for performing the decision-making steps are outlined in the guide, thus, making the process of locating the required solution comparatively simple. The stage mentioned above is crucial to the successful handover process as the emergent misunderstandings may cause a significant delay and, thus, jeopardize the safety of the patient, triggering an aggravation of the health issue. Last but not least, the approaches suggested for the handover implementation by the OSSIE authors can be viewed as extremely helpful in reducing time waste and preventing misconceptions.
Finally, the significance of the organizational leadership tools listed in the guide needs to be brought up. Apart from administering treatment to patients, clinicians must possess a certain set of leadership skills that create premises for an efficient data management strategy and a successful provision of the necessary treatment. As stressed above, the communication process may result in data misinterpretation or even a conflict, causing a delay. The use of the appropriate negotiation techniques and time management strategies is likely to make a difference in the patient’s wellbeing, preventing the instance of the development of further health complexities. Therefore, the information represented in the guide can be deemed as crucial in increasing the quality of healthcare services, in general, and carrying out the handover process, in particular.
Conclusion
Clinical communication can be defined as the interactions between the clinical workforce and the patients and between the professionals; the purpose of this communication is the transfer of valuable clinical information that usually benefits both of the sharing parties (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2007). When both of the communicating sides are the clinicians, they participate in the handover of knowledge and patient information that is directly connected to the future patient outcome. Clinical communication is complicated by a series of barriers such as distractions, inattentive listening, the heavy use of the professional jargon, or the confusion due to the fact that one patient has to communicate with several clinicians at the same time (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2007). The failure to communicate successfully leads to an increase in the sentinel case rates. Apart from helping the communicators to gather information and learn, clinical communication is important as it helps the professionals to deliver holistic approach to care when not just the body of a patient is treated but also their emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects (Atherton et al., 2009). OSSIE guide developed and presented within the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (2010) is an extremely helpful tool that contains a detailed outline of a stage by stage plan that is designed specifically as guidance for the health care organisations and managers to follow. The change may be extremely challenging to plan, implement, and maintain in the health care industry. However, change is ever-present in this rapidly developing field. That is why there is a constant need for directions and help from the side of the health care facilities and institutions. OSSIE guide addresses this issue and provides a series of steps that can be compared to some of the most well-known and effective change models such as Kotter’s eight steps and Lewin’s theory.
References
AHRQ. (2008). Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle. Web.
Alpert, J. (2012). 5 dos and don’ts for communicating in clinical settings. Web.
Atherton, K., Chisholm, A., Rutter, L., Peters, S., & Fletcher, I. (2009). Breaking barriers in clinical communication: Are securely attached doctors more empathetic doctors? Reinvention: a Journal of Undergraduate Research, 2(1), 1-7.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. (2007). A framework to support clinical communication. Web.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. (2010). The OSSIE guide to clinical handover improvement. Sydney, Australia: ACSQHC.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. (2011). Implementation toolkit for clinical handover improvement. Sydney, Australia: ACSQHC.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. (2012). National safety and quality health service standards. Sydney, Australia: ACSQHC.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. (2016). Accreditation and NSQHS standards. Web.
Aveta Business Institute. (n. d.). The importance of quality improvement. Web.
Batalden, S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). What is “quality improvement” and how can it transform healthcare? Quality Safety Health Care, 16, 2-3.
Burkoski, V., & Yoon, J. (2013). Continuous quality improvement: A shared governance model that maximises agent-specific knowledge. Nursing Leadership, 26, 7-16.
Change management plan workbook and template. (n. d.). Web.
Draper, D., Felland, L., Liebhaber, A., & Melichar, L. (2008). The role of nurses in hospital quality improvement. Research Brief, 3, 1-8.
Faloudah, A. A., Qasim, S., & Bahumayd, M. (2015). Total Quality Management in healthcare. International Journal of Computer Applications, 120(12), 22-24.
Jones, S. (2012). Change management: A classic theory revisited. Web.
Hall, L., Moore, S., & Barnsteiner, J. (2008). Quality and nursing: Moving from a concept to a core competency. Urologic Nursing, 28(6):417-426.
Haughom, J. (2016). Five deming principles that help healthcare process improvement. Web.
HRSA. (2011). Quality improvement. Web.
Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model. (2016). Web.
Leebov, W., & Ersoz C. J. (2003). The health care manager’s guide to continuous quality improvement. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.
Mitchell, G. (2013). Selecting the best theory to implement planned change. Nursing Management, 20(1), 32-37.
NHS. (2007). How to change practice. Web.
NSW. (2014). Implementation of the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation Scheme. Web.
OECD. (2015). OECD Reviews of health care quality: Australia 2015 raising standards. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Parker, J., & Coiera, E. (2000). Improving clinical communication. JAMIA, 7(5), 453–461.
Patient-Clinician Communication. (2016). Web.
Teleki, S., Damberg, C., & Reville, R. (2003). Quality of health care: What is it, why is it important, and how can it be improved in California’s Workers’ Compensation Programs? Web.
Victoria State Government. (2015). Quality, safety and service improvement. Web.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organisational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67), 1-10.
Weston, M., & Roberts, D. (2013). The influence of quality improvement efforts on patient outcomes and nursing work: A perspective from chief nursing officers at three large health systems. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 18(3), Manuscript 2.
Woods, D., Holl, J., Angst, D., Echiverri, S., Johnson, D., Soglin, D., …Weiss, K. (n. d.). Improving clinical communication and patient safety: Clinician-recommended solutions.Web.