What is quality and how much does it really matter?

Perhaps no single word has appeared more often in health care literature during the last 12 months than "quality." Designing and marketing high quality health care services is likely to be a strategic issue through the 1990s. The purpose of this commentary is to describe why the adoption of a three-component definition of quality may be useful for designing strategies for continual quality improvements, as well as to suggest the principal ways quality should be assessed. Answers to the question, "How much does quality really matter?" are examined. The commentary is based on the keynote address presented at the 1991 Health Care Consumer Buying Guides Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, sponsored by the Academy for Health Services Marketing.     

Violence against physicians and nurses in a hospital: How does it happen? A mixed-methods study

Background

Violence against medical personnel is unexpected in hospitals which are devoted to healing, and yet, it is frequent and of concern in the health system. Little is known about the factors that lead to hospital violence, and even less is known about the interactions among these factors.The aim of the study was to identify and describe the perceptions of staff and patients regarding the factors that lead to violence on the part of patients and those accompanying them.

Methods

A mixed-methods study in a large, general, university tertiary hospital. A self-administered survey yielding 678 completed questionnaires, comprising 34% nurses and 66% physicians (93% response rate). Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted separately with both victims and perpetrators of violent episodes, and four focus-groups (N = 20) were undertaken separately with physicians, staff nurses, head-nurses, and security personnel.

Results

Violence erupts as a result of interacting factors encompassing staff behavior, patient behavior, hospital setting, professional roles, and waiting times. Patients and staff reported similar perceptions and emotions regarding the episodes of violence in which they were involved. Of 4,047 statements elicited in the staff survey regarding the eruption of violence, 39% referred to staff behavior; 26 % to patient/visitor behavior; 17% to organizational conditions, and 10% to waiting times. In addition, 35% of the staff respondents reported that their own behavior contributed to the creation of the most severe violent episode in which they were involved, and 48% stated that staff behavior contributed to violent episodes. Half of the reasons stated by physicians and nurses for violence eruption were related to patient dissatisfaction with the quality of service, the degree of staff professionalism, or an unacceptable comment of a staff member. In addition, data from the focus groups pointed to lack of understanding of the hospital system on the part of patients, together with poor communication between patients and providers and expectations gaps.

Conclusions

Our various and triangulated data sources show that staff and patients share conditions of overload, pressure, fatigue, and frustration. Staff also expressed lack of coping tools to prevent violence. Self-conscious awareness regarding potential interacting factors can be used to develop interventions aimed at prevention of and better coping with hospital violence for both health systems' users and providers.

     

Family history of colon cancer: what does it mean and how is it useful?

BACKGROUND: Family history of colon cancer can be deconstructed into causal and noncausal explanations, which include genetic factors, environmental factors, gene-environment interactions, misclassification, and differences in screening. METHODS: We investigated some of these causal and noncausal explanations by using data from a case-control study of colon cancer conducted among African Americans and whites in North Carolina. We examined the relationship between family history and polymorphisms in four genes (N-acetyltransferase 1 and 2 [NAT1, NAT2], methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma [PPARG]), environmental risk factors, the joint distributions of these genes and environmental risk factors, and the prevalence of colon cancer screening. RESULTS: Participants with one or more first-degree relatives with colon cancer showed a slightly higher prevalence of at-risk genotypes for each locus, but results were statistically significant only for NAT2. Participants with a family history showed a higher prevalence of at-risk combinations of genotypes and environmental risk factors (NAT2 and well-done red meat consumption; PPARG and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication use). The sensitivity and predictive value of family history for identifying persons with at-risk genotypes or environmental risk factors was low. History of cancer screening was similar in those with and without a family history. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that family history of colon cancer may represent aggregation of some genetic polymorphisms and environmental risk factors. Although it is premature to use family history as a screening tool when testing for genetic polymorphisms, further research is needed to identify additional genes and environmental factors that may be associated with family history.     

What, how and why does the team think?

It is all very well being able to 'pick up' what team members seem to be doing and even to speculate on the reasons why. It is an entirely different exercise doing something constructive with the information you garner about team practice and performance. Michael Walton and Graham Smith, in the fourth article of their series, introduce some practical perspectives for assessing your team's performance.