Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Quality improvement

Identifying a quality improvement project

Abstract

An important step on the roadmap to a successful quality improvement (QI) project is careful selection of topics and aims to be addressed by QI projects. Using information from a variety of data monitoring systems as well as individual events and experiences, leaders of neonatal units and QI teams should first identify quality and safety gaps in their unit. They should then use an explicit, formal process for selecting the best projects to which their limited time and resources should be allocated. Priority should be given to projects that address a quality gap of high magnitude and impact, have a high likelihood of success, have a champion, fit with the unit’s state of readiness for change, have organizational support and align with organizational priorities. The scope of the project should also match the experience and expertise of the QI team.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Available from http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Changes/default.aspx.

  2. Kotter JP, Schlesinger LA . Choosing strategies for change. Harvard businessreview. 1979; 57 (2): 106–114.

  3. Swanson JR, Pearlman SA . Roadmap to a successful quality improvement project. J Perinatol 2017; 37 (2): 112–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Horbar JD, Soll RF, Edwards WH . The Vermont Oxford Network: a community of practice. Clin Perinatol 2010; 37 (1): 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Murthy K, Dykes FD, Padula MA, Pallotto EK, Reber KM, Durand DJ et al. The Children's Hospitals Neonatal Database: an overview of patient complexity, outcomes and variation in care. J Perinatol 2014; 34 (8): 582–586.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Higgins RD, Shankaran S . The Neonatal Research Network: history since 2003, future directions and challenges. Semin Perinatol 2016; 40 (6): 337–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Spitzer AR, Ellsbury D, Clark RH . The Pediatrix BabySteps(R) Data Warehouse—a unique national resource for improving outcomes for neonates. Indian J Pediatr 2015; 82 (1): 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Howard E, Jolles D . Navigating the perinatal quality landscape. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2015; 29 (2): 116–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Howell EA, Zeitlin J, Hebert PL, Balbierz A, Egorova N . Association between hospital-level obstetric quality indicators and maternal and neonatal morbidity. JAMA 2014; 312 (15): 1531–1541.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson CE, Handberg E, Dobalian A, Gurol N, Pearson V . Improving perinatal and neonatal patient safety: the AHRQ patient safety indicators. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2005; 19 (1): 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Main EK . New perinatal quality measures from the National Quality Forum, the Joint Commission and the Leapfrog Group. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009; 21 (6): 532–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Scanlon MC, Harris JM 2nd, Levy F, Sedman A . Evaluation of the agency for healthcare research and quality pediatric quality indicators. Pediatrics 2008; 121 (6): e1723–e1731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Simpson KR . Perinatal patient safety and quality. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2011; 25 (2): 103–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bush RA, Quigley EJ, Fox L, Garcia-Bassets I . Role of reputation in top pediatric specialties rankings. Pediatrics 2011; 128 (6): 1168–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feudtner C, Berry JG, Parry G, Hain P, Morse RB, Slonim AD et al. Statistical uncertainty of mortality rates and rankings for children's hospitals. Pediatrics 2011; 128 (4): e966–e972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Halasyamani LK, Davis MM . Conflicting measures of hospital quality: ratings from "Hospital Compare" versus "Best Hospitals". J Hosp Med 2007; 2 (3): 128–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Parry GJ, Gould CR, McCabe CJ, Tarnow-Mordi WO . Annual league tables of mortality in neonatal intensive care units: longitudinal study. International Neonatal Network and the Scottish Neonatal Consultants and Nurses Collaborative Study Group. BMJ (Clin Res ed) 1998; 316 (7149): 1931–1935.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bissinger RL, Mueller M, Cox TH, Cahill J, Garner SS, Irving M et al. Antibiotic timing in neonates with suspected hospital-acquired infections. Adv Neonatal Care 2013; 13: 22–28; quiz 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Elmekkawi A, More K, Shea J, Sperling C, Da Silva Z, Finelli M et al. Impact of stewardship on inhaled nitric oxide utilization in a neonatal ICU. Hosp Pediatr 2016; 6 (10): 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gelfer P, Cameron R, Masters K, Kennedy KA . Integrating "Back to Sleep" recommendations into neonatal ICU practice. Pediatrics 2013; 131 (4): e1264–e1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Engorn BM, Kahntroff SL, Frank KM, Singh S, Harvey HA, Barkulis CT et al. Perioperative hypothermia in neonatal intensive care unit patients: effectiveness of a thermoregulation intervention and associated risk factors. Paediatr Anaesth 2017; 27 (2): 196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Khedr S, Blake V, Erdogan E . Neonatal unit hemolysis rates from an academic medical center: a quality improvement project. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2016; 140 (6): 502–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Oza-Frank R, Kachoria R, Dail J, Green J, Walls K, McClead RE Jr . A quality improvement project to decrease human milk errors in the NICU. Pediatrics 2017; 139 (2): e20154451.

  24. Suresh GK . Measuring patient safety in neonatology. Am J Perinatol 2012; 29 (1): 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thomas EJ, Petersen LA . Measuring errors and adverse events in health care. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18 (1): 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Browne AM, Mullen R, Teets J, Bollig A, Steven J Common cause analysis: focus on institutional change. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML (eds). Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol 1: Assessment). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, USA, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Langley GJ, Moen RD, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP . The Improvement Guide. Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leininger CJ, Seaman LH . Selecting clinical quality improvement projects: getting a bigger return for your investment. Top Health Inf Manage 2000; 20 (3): 27–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kotter JP . Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  30. National Institute for Childrens Healthcare Quality. Available from http://www.nichq.org/how-we-improve/resources/qi-tips-sustaining-success.

  31. Holt DT, Helfrich CD, Hall CG, Weiner BJ . Are you ready? How health professionals can comprehensively conceptualize readiness for change. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25 (Suppl 1): 50–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Weiner BJ, Amick H, Lee SY . Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: a review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Med Care Res Rev 2008; 65 (4): 379–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gagnon MP, Attieh R, Ghandour el K, Legare F, Ouimet M, Estabrooks CA et al. A systematic review of instruments to assess organizational readiness for knowledge translation in health care. PLoS ONE 2014; 9 (12): e114338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaplan HC, Provost LP, Froehle CM, Margolis PA . The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21 (1): 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fisher D, Cochran KM, Provost LP, Patterson J, Bristol T, Metzguer K et al. Reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections in North Carolina NICUs. Pediatrics 2013; 132 (6): e1664–e1671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kaplan HC, Lannon C, Walsh MC, Donovan EF . Ohio statewide quality-improvement collaborative to reduce late-onset sepsis in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2011; 127 (3): 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Patrick SW, Schumacher RE, Horbar JD, Buus-Frank ME, Edwards EM, Morrow KA et al. Improving care for neonatal abstinence syndrome. Pediatrics 2016; 137: 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Payne NR, Finkelstein MJ, Liu M, Kaempf JW, Sharek PJ, Olsen S . NICU practices and outcomes associated with 9 years of quality improvement collaboratives. Pediatrics 2010; 125 (3): 437–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Profit J, Soll RF . Neonatal networks: clinical research and quality improvement. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 20 (6): 410–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schulman J, Stricof R, Stevens TP, Horgan M, Gase K, Holzman IR et al. Statewide NICU central-line-associated bloodstream infection rates decline after bundles and checklists. Pediatrics 2011; 127 (3): 436–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wirtschafter DD, Powers RJ, Pettit JS, Lee HC, Boscardin WJ, Ahmad Subeh M et al. Nosocomial infection reduction in VLBW infants with a statewide quality-improvement model. Pediatrics 2011; 127 (3): 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wisconsin-Madison OoqiUo. Available from https://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/uploads/resources/Project_Prioritization_Guide_v_1.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gautham K Suresh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Katakam, L., Suresh, G. Identifying a quality improvement project. J Perinatol 37, 1161–1165 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.95

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.95

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links