Explore
For Enterprise
Join for Free
Log In

艺术与人文
商务
计算机科学
数据科学
信息技术
健康
数学和逻辑
个人发展
物理科学与工程
社会科学
语言学习
學位
證書

瀏覽 Coursera 的全部課程

瀏覽
搜索
企業版
登錄
免費加入

Guest Lecturer: Farrohk Alemi

Loading...

医疗质量改进

凯斯西储大学

4.3（20 個評分） | 3.6K 名學生已註冊

In this course you will learn about the importance of quality in healthcare and how you can contribute by implementing a quality improvement (QI) project to improve processes of care and patient outcomes. You will learn about powerful tools to add to your QI ‘toolbox’ during short lectures and reflective exercises. You will apply these tools to the implementation of a QI project in your own practice setting or an area of personal improvement. At the completion of the course, you will have a storyboard that captures your QI project success to share with others. The QI project will be considered within the context of interprofessional teams and from a systems perspective. The objective of this course is to empower you, the working healthcare professional, to improve your knowledge and skills in the science of quality improvement so that you can take action in your own clinical setting to improve the quality of care for your patients and their families.

查看授課大綱

審閱

4.3（20 個評分）

5 stars
10 ratings
4 stars
7 ratings
3 stars
2 ratings
1 star
1 ratings

從本節課中

Week 2

Application10:01

Guest Lecturer: Farrohk Alemi10:59

教學方

Mary A. Dolansky, PhD, RN
Associate Professor, Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing; Director, QSEN Institute; VA Quality Senior Nurse Fellow, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA
Shirley Moore, PhD, RN, FAAN
Edward J. and Louise Mellen Professor of Nursing and Associate Dean of Research
Mamta K Singh, MD, MS
Physician Director of the Center of Excellence in Primary Care Education, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA; Associate Professor of Medicine, School of Medicine

腳本

Mary Dolansky called and asked if I could speak to the history of this course:

where it came from, and who are some of the people who started it.

I was hesitant;

A good course stands on its own merit.

Its value today perhaps has nothing to do with its history.

But history matters.

When this school started, healthcare was different.

The University was different.

The differences are very large, and

many of our students are not aware of how radically the world was different.

To them it seems that it has always been like now.

We have always had quality improvement teams.

We have always improved, we have always taught in teams with medical management,

and nursing students in same class.

What's the norm today, was not possible just a couple of decades ago.

The course you are engaged to take is the product of

many trends that were novel one day, and the norm today.

Over the years I have aged, have become older and more contemplative.

My students on the other hand have not.

They remain forever young.

Forever stuck in their 20s and 30s.

They remain exuberant and forward looking.

To them everything is possible.

There's some continuously forever young, but

increasingly unaware of how things were 40 years ago.

As time has passed, I look back and see radical change.

They don't.

They see today as a continuation of yesterday.

The world is not really that different from yesterday from their perspective.

To them, the world has always been this way.

They do not see how difficult it was to get here.

They do not see what I see.

They, meaning you, are blissfully unaware of history.

40 years ago, there was no course on process improvement, not here,

not at most universities, not in medical schools, not in nursing schools, and

not in engineering schools.

Few if any medical students were exposed to process improvement.

Management students were told that quality is in the domain of clinicians.

Nursing students had not been taught about improvement teams.

Quality was essentially taught through Donabedian's 1966 article

highlighting structure, process and outcomes.

Everywhere you looked, there were quality assurance efforts.

These efforts were all based on peer evaluation.

Doctors evaluated doctors, and nurses evaluated nurses.

If a problem was found, a letter was sent to reprimand the person.

Unless you really messed up, there was rarely any consequences.

It was all a search for the bad apple.

It was a search for the single clinician who had messed up badly.

It had to be a glaring mistake.

Every peer had to agree that it was a mistake.

The single clinician was blamed and everyone else was okay.

Horror stories were told.

Oh, he was drunk when doing the surgery and left a knife in the patient's body.

The idea was to find the bad apple and save others.

Then came Edward Deming, and his idea on continuous quality improvement.

Now quality was no longer a search for bad apples.

It was everyone's problem, and no-one's.

It was a system.

It was the fault of the system.

No one was to be blamed.

Everyone, even the best were to improve.

One of Deming's idea was that marketing and production had to work as a team.

In health care, this translated to the need for interdisciplinary teams.

But clinicians were already trained to work in silos and not in teams.

If change had to occur,

then it had to occur in the training of clinicians and managers.

It has to occur upstream, where people were creating their work habits.

If professionals were to work as teams, then they had to be trained as teams.

This idea was to create an interdisciplinary faculty to teach

managers, physicians, nurses and other health professionals in the same class.

At the time, Institute for Health Improvement had started a new

collaborative for people to learn, how to create interdisciplinary faculty.

Linda Headrick was one of the people who started the collaborative.

Linda was a physician, and focused on training of physicians and how it could

include collaboration with other professionals,

from her first days of graduating as a new physician til today, she has

pursued the goal of getting physicians to work in interdisciplinary teams.

Duncan was another founding member of the group.

Duncan was well, it, I should say is, at heart an epidemiologist,

he was the editor of Medical Care and well funded with various projects, he had

published extensively and his involvement gave the project a real anchor.

He would cheer us on,

he would say good, good, let us try that as a pilot on a small scale.

Let us see how it works.

He just kept us going.

Dr. Moore was another of the founding members of the group.

She came out of the school of nursing and

brought with her great insights on how we could all work together.

She saw through the real meaning of what faculty we are talking about.

And would show us how the course affected individual patients.

This is me.

I am an engineer, and I was teaching quality improvement to managers.

I joined the team to represent the perspective of the managers and

engineers working on quality improvement.

There were others too, for a while a faculty member from the School of

Business in Case Western Reserve joined us.

Francine Heckelmen, who was focused on faculty training in

the School of Nursing at CWRU, also joined us before she retired.

Nancy Cassis, who recently passed away, was a student in one of the early classes,

and taught in subsequent classes from the perspective of a practitioner.

There were many more others who contributed a great deal.

I'm sure that I'm forgetting to name some of the key people.

Like David Aaron, I just remembered him.

This is one of the early classes.

There were 13 sessions.

Each session for three hours.

So, one of, one of us would teach it.

Students were composed of health professionals, including medical students,

nurses, and nutrition and other fields.

Management students would also attend.

Everybody took the same course content, was graded on the same assignments.

These diverse students were also taught by diverse faculty.

In those days, one of us would take turns to teach the class.

Duncan was teaching the class that day.

Sometimes we taught the class in groups-- team teaching--

but most of the time, it was taught by one of us.

We would meet in person, or later on the phone, to discuss the course content,

the reading, the assignments, grading, and all sorts of class related issues.

Later on, as course content was set, we focused on research and

reading and learning.

Let me describe our process for

creating this course, what I call the dance of ideas.

This is what would happen, a person had an idea,

for example, Duncan would introduce us to personal improvement.

We would read about it, we would invite people to come and talk to us.

We would then change it and bounce the idea off of each other.

We would then pilot test it, then come back and talk about it.

As a result of all this give and take, the idea would take shape.

The end result would be a course in which personal improvement is actively used

throughout the lectures.

The end result of the same discussions also lead to a book that would

apply personal improvement to weight loss and exercise.

Shirley even did a NIH funded study evaluating personal process

improvement as a method of rehab.

Others would also publish about it and apply it in still different contexts.

So an idea would go around many times, be examined in many different ways.

This month, Atlantic Monthly has an article about how it takes two people to

be creative.

Some of the most important advances have been made because individuals run their

ideas against each other.

Here you see the Beatles doing so.

A healthy competition emerges, a surge occurs, for

better ideas from different perspective.

This is how the course unfolded too.

Creativity and marriage from faculty talking with each other and

coming up with content and new ways of teaching.

Soon our work together went beyond the class.

We would read books together, discuss it, we would talk about research ideas.

We would dream things up, collaborate, we would serve as each other's references.

We even one time went dancing together.

I think we went dancing after a meeting in Nashville, Tennessee.

We had to break the ice and this was helpful.

Through these meetings we ended up learning from each other.

We set out to teach in an interdisciplinary fashion and

we ended up learning more than we taught.

We wanted to teach teamwork, but ended up being transformed by our teaching.

You're about to start a new course.

Keep in mind that what seems obvious and plain, was not easy at first.

Nothing in the course came easy.

People had to argue about it.

Consensus had to be reached.

Even the faculty had to compromise with each other.

The course content, the methods of teaching, and a great deal more had to be

created from scratch and with collaboration of different professions.

What seems normal today was not so, even a few decades ago.

探索我們的目錄

免費加入並獲得個性化推薦、更新和優惠。

Coursera 致力於普及全世界最好的教育，它與全球一流大學和機構合作提供在線課程。

© 2019 Coursera Inc. 保留所有權利。

通過 App Store 下載

通過 Google Play 獲取

Coursera
關於
管理團隊
工作機會
目錄
證書
MasterTrack™ 證書
學位
企業版
政府版

社區
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

連接
博客
Facebook
領英
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
技術博客

更多
條款
隱私
幫助
內容訪問
媒體
聯繫我們
目錄
附屬公司