Quality management in health care Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins

Journal description

This peer-reviewed quarterly journal provides a forum to explore the theoretical, technical, and strategic elements of total quality management in health care. Each issue of Quality Management in Health Care (QMHC) features a timely symposium that addresses a key issue in health care quality management. Also included in each issue is an in-depth interview with a key individual in health care quality management, an educational tutorial on basic quality management tools and processes, an information clearinghouse to encourage informal communication among those involved in the field of health care quality management, and a reference center that reviews books, journal articles, seminars, and videos of interest.

Current impact factor: 0.00

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00
Website Quality Management in Health Care website
Other titles Quality management in health care, QMHC
ISSN 1063-8628
OCLC 26178154
Material type Periodical
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Some journals have separate policies, please check with each journal directly
    • Pre-print must be removed upon acceptance for publication
    • Post-print may be deposited in personal website or institutional repository
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Must include statement that it is not the final published version
    • Published source must be acknowledged with full citation
    • Set statement to accompany deposit
    • Must link to publisher version
    • NIH authors will have their accepted manuscripts transmitted to PubMed Central on their behalf after a 12 months embargo (see policy for details)
    • Wellcome Trust and HHMI authors will have their accepted manuscripts transmitted to PubMed Central on their behalf after a 6 months embargo (see policy for details)
    • Publisher last reviewed on 19/03/2015
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • NA
    Quality management in health care 01/2015; 24(1):1. DOI:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000050
  • NA
    Quality management in health care 01/2015; 24(2):102. DOI:10.1097/01.QMH.0000464709.65950.b8
  • NA
    Quality management in health care 01/2015; 24(1):60. DOI:10.1097/01.QMH.0000459972.00796.b6
  • NA
    Quality management in health care 01/2015; 24(2):102. DOI:10.1097/01.QMH.0000464710.73573.02
  • NA
    Quality management in health care 01/2015; 24(1):60. DOI:10.1097/01.QMH.0000459974.85548.70
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Although Lean management techniques are increasingly used in health care to improve quality and reduce costs, lessons about how to successfully implement this approach on the front lines of care delivery are not well documented. In this study, we highlight key facilitators and barriers to implementing Lean among frontline primary care providers. Methods: This case study took place at a large, ambulatory care delivery system serving nearly 1 million patients. In-depth interviews were conducted with primary care physicians, staff, and administrators to identify key factors impacting Lean redesigns in primary care. Results: Overall, staff engagement and performance management, sensitivity to the professional values and culture of medicine, and perceived adequacy of organizational resources were critical when introducing Lean changes. Specific drivers of change included empowerment of staff at all levels, visual display of performance metrics, and a culture of innovation and collaboration. Barriers included physician resistance to standardized work, difficulty transferring management responsibilities to non-physician staff, and time and staffing required for participating in improvement efforts. Conclusion: Although Lean offers a new approach to delivering care, the implementation process itself is both complex and crucial to success. Understanding early facilitators and barriers can maximize Lean's, potential to improve health care delivery.
    Quality management in health care 01/2015; 24(3):103-108. DOI:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000062
  • NA
    Quality management in health care 01/2015; 24(1):60. DOI:10.1097/01.QMH.0000459973.08420.9f
  • Quality management in health care 04/2014; 23(2):69-69. DOI:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000029
  • Quality management in health care 01/2014; 23:155- 162.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Since most radiologists do not meet with patients, questionnaires often substitute for face-to-face interviews to collect patients' history. We report the effect of direct radiologist-patient interviews on the quality of patient history recorded for musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging questionnaires completed by outpatients were separated into 2 cohorts: (1) imaging center (IC) forms with no radiologist interviews; (2) hospital (H) forms with radiologist-patient interviews. Three blinded radiologists independently scored each questionnaire for quality on a 5-point scale. A separate quantitative analysis was also performed. The unpaired t test, Fischer exact test, and χ² test were used to compare the cohorts. Results: The mean score of the H cohort among reviewers was superior to the IC cohort: 3.79 (±0.98) versus 3.04 (±1.00), P < .0001. Each reviewer also independently found the H cohort to be of higher quality for patient history, P < .0001. For the IC cohort, 7.8% of questionnaires did not report a single symptom versus 0.0% in the H cohort, P = .0331. Also, the IC cohort recorded symptoms in 2 or less words more often than the H cohort, P < .0001. Conclusion: Brief radiologist-patient interviews are superior for obtaining a higher quality of patient history for musculoskeletal MRI than patient questionnaires alone.
    Radiological Society of North America 2013 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; 12/2013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The content and spectrum of rural health care services are different from those in urban areas. The extent to which health care consumers' perceptions of the quality of these services vary across settings and the association of these perceptions with features of rural and urban settings are unclear. To determine whether perceptual differences of quality exist and contrast rural/urban associations between contextual characteristics and perceived quality of health care. Multilevel, cross-sectional analysis of a state-representative sample of 33 786 adults, stratified by rural/urban status linked with county-level data describing contextual features (eg, health care, economics, and social capital). The dependent variable was respondents' perceived quality of health care received in the past year. Weighted multilevel random intercept models examined the independent association of contextual characteristics with perceived quality. Overall perceived quality did not differ between rural and urban settings. Similarly, the pattern of associations between perceived quality and contextual characteristics was generally comparable between settings. A notable difference was an association between higher quality with an increasing proportion of hospitals offering more than 25 services in urban areas (beta = .763; P < .05). Despite rural/urban differences in contextual characteristics with potential influence on health care delivery, overall consumer perception of health care quality was similar in both settings. This suggests that health care managers may be adopting setting-specific strategies to enhance consumer satisfaction despite contextual differences.
    Quality management in health care 10/2009; 18(4):257-67. DOI:10.1097/QMH.0b013e3181bee1ce
  • Quality management in health care 10/2009; 18(4):229-230. DOI:10.1097/01.QMH.0000362164.38025.da
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The complexity of the operating room (OR) requires that both structural (eg, department layout) and behavioral (eg, staff interactions) patterns of work be considered when developing quality improvement strategies. In our study, we investigated how these contextual factors influence outpatient OR processes and the quality of care delivered. The study setting was a German university-affiliated hospital performing approximately 6000 outpatient surgeries annually. During the 3-year-study period, the hospital significantly changed its outpatient OR facility layout from a decentralized (ie, ORs in adjacent areas of the building) to a centralized (ie, ORs in immediate vicinity of each other) design. To study the impact of the facility change on OR processes, we used a mixed methods approach, including process analysis, process modeling, and social network analysis of staff interactions. The change in facility layout was seen to influence OR processes in ways that could substantially affect patient outcomes. For example, we found a potential for more errors during handovers in the new centralized design due to greater interdependency between tasks and staff. Utilization of the mixed methods approach in our analysis, as compared with that of a single assessment method, enabled a deeper understanding of the OR work context and its influence on outpatient OR processes.
    Quality management in health care 10/2009; 18(4):305-14. DOI:10.1097/QMH.0b013e3181bee2c6
  • Quality management in health care 10/2009; 18(4):229. DOI:10.1097/01.QMH.0000362163.30401.2b
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ways in which tailored interventions foster sustained improvement in the quality of health care delivery across different practice settings are not well understood. Using the empirically developed Practice Change Model (PCM), we identify and describe assessment and tailoring activities with potential to enhance the fit between proposed interventions and practice settings. We obtained quantitative and qualitative data from 2 quality improvement trials conducted in diverse primary care practices in northeast Ohio. A multidisciplinary team used a PCM-based template to identify features of practice assessment and tailoring associated with practices' willingness and ability to change. Our results suggest that intervention tailoring requires assessment of key stakeholders' motivations, external influences, resources and opportunities for change, and the interactions between these factors. Using this information, intervention tailoring then includes seeking and working with key stakeholders, building assets, providing options, keeping change processes flexible, offering feedback, providing exposure to scientific evidence, facilitating group processes, involving new partners, brainstorming, using stories/play acting/humor, assuming a consultant role, reframing, moving meetings off-site, and stepping back or pausing. A model-driven approach guiding practice assessment enables tailored responses to the unique and emerging conditions that distinguish health care practices and influence implementation of quality management interventions.
    Quality management in health care 10/2009; 18(4):268-77. DOI:10.1097/QMH.0b013e3181bee268