Balancing Participation and Expertise: A Comparison of Locally and Centrally Managed Health Care Quality Improvement Within Primary Care Practices
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Successful Organizational Strategies to Sustain Use of A-CHESS: A Mobile Intervention for Individuals With Alcohol Use Disorders (2015) · cites this paper as [47]
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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