4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Performance Improvement: Getting an Early Start

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL EDUCATION
卷 69, 期 6, 页码 774-779

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.06.021

关键词

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP); performance improvement; Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies; resident champion; quality measures; surgical education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and the Surgical Care Improvement Program (SCIP) can be utilized to develop quality initiatives to improve surgical care. Understanding the fundamentals of quality measures provides insight to the six Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies. Resident education needs a robust exposure to quality measures, such as NSQIP and SCIP to prepare surgeons for tomorrow's healthcare system. METHODS: The resident champion (RC) position is a dedicated research year between the PGY-2 and PGY-3 as a way to introduce residents to NSQIP and the importance of quality improvement. The resident partners with the NSQIP clinical reviewer to analyze data, develop quality improvement projects, implement these initiatives, and re-examine quality performance. RESULTS: Over the last 24 months, there have been numerous performance improvement initiatives and projects implemented at our facility as a direct result of the RC's efforts and their participation within the performance improvement committees. In addition, the projects led to multiple presentations at national conferences. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated year in performance improvement has benefited our residents with a working knowledge of quality measures and our institution with multiple projects that have yielded significant improvements in the quality of patient care. (J Surg 69:774-779. (C) 2012 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据