Cited by 24Healthcare Quality and ManagementPatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Organizational Technologies for Transforming Care: Measures and Strategies for Pursuit of IOM Quality Aims

Open access
Gamm, Larry, Kash, Bita, Bolin, Jane·2007·Journal of Ambulatory Care Management

Abstract

Progress on the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) 6 aims to bridge the "quality chasm" requires both measurement and the concerting of multiple organizational technologies. The basic thesis of this article is that rapid progress on the IOM's multiple aims calls for transformative change within and among healthcare organizations. The promise of a number of types of transformative approaches is closely linked to their ability to simultaneously build upon several organizational technologies: clinical, social, information, and administrative technologies. To encourage and advance such efforts, this article identifies illustrative measures of attainment of the IOM's 6 aims or targeted areas for improvement that reflect the contributions of the 4 organizational technologies. It discusses examples of relationships between the IOM aims and the organizational technologies considered. Finally, the article offers illustrations of the interplay of these organizational technologies and IOM aims-across an array of organizational innovations with transformative potential. Included among such innovations are information technology in the form of electronic medical records, computer-based physician order entry, and patient health records; organization-wide patient-centered cultural change such as Studer's Hardwiring Excellence; Six Sigma and Toyota Production Management/LEAN; major clinical technology change, for example, minimally invasive cardiac surgery and broader treatment innovations such as disease management.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.jac.0000290397.58790.b9

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reviewed studies lacked measures of quality and safety outcome indicators.

    “However, reviewed studies lacked measures of quality and safety outcome indicators, something that will need to be rectified to determine the whole impact of Lean on patients [92].”

    From Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review (2011) · cites this paper as [92]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Gamm, L., Kash, B., & Bolin, J.
Affiliations
Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Ambulatory Care Management
Published
2007-10
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
291-301
ISSN
0148-9917 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2033343471
Cited by
24
References
26
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Ambulatory Care Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
organizational technology, quality chasm, quality improvement, healthcare organizations, organizational change, electronic health records, patient-centered care, Six Sigma, lean manufacturing, minimally invasive cardiac surgery, disease management, organizational measurement
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Practice Management, Medical, Quality of Health Care, United States, National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, U.S., Health and Medicine Division, Total Quality Management, Disease Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review