Cited by 63Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealthcare Quality and ManagementPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Balancing Participation and Expertise: A Comparison of Locally and Centrally Managed Health Care Quality Improvement Within Primary Care Practices

Parker, Louise E., de Pillis, Emmeline, Altschuler, Andrea, Rubenstein, Lisa V., Meredith, Lisa S.·2007·Qualitative Health Research

Abstract

In a longitudinal qualitative study, the authors evaluated two health care quality improvement (QI) methods that emphasized either participation (local approach) or expertise (central approach). They followed teams using these approaches to develop depression care QI programs for primary care practices over several years, observing their processes and outcomes and learning about participants' perceptions, beliefs, and experiences. Concordant with the literature, most participants preferred the local approach, but some were willing to relinquish some decision making to experts. Participants identified unique advantages of both the local (e.g., maximizes buy-in and local fit) and central (e.g., maximizes efficiency, reduces burden) approaches. The authors propose a hybrid model in which experts make strategic decisions about what practices to adopt and local site personal make tactical decisions about implementation. They believe that balancing participation and expertise provides the best formula for producing lasting QI for health care organizations across a wide variety of circumstances.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732307307447

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Effectively engaging staff, and in our case, clients, establishes a sense of empowerment that they are a part of the change process, enhances staff motivation to participate in the change process, and leads to more actionable steps by staff to promote sustainment of the change.

    “Effectively engaging staff, and in our case, clients, establishes a sense of empowerment that they are a part of the change process, enhances staff motivation to participate in the change process, and leads to more actionable steps by staff to promote sustainment of the change [40,44-48].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 63

Authors
Parker, L. E., de Pillis, E., Altschuler, A., Rubenstein, L. V., & Meredith, L. S.
Affiliations
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University of Hawaii
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Parker, Louise E.
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Published
2007-11
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
1268-1279
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
OpenAlex
W2112204046
Cited by
63
References
38
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01mh050732-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U01-MH-50732)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
healthcare quality improvement, primary care practices, local management, centralized management, participation, expertise, depression care, implementation, hybrid model, organizational decision-making, stakeholder perspectives
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Organizational, Depression, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Longitudinal Studies, Managed Care Programs, Management Audit, Management Quality Circles, Medical Audit, Mental Health Services, Primary Health Care, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Total Quality Management, Qualitative Research

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