Stephen J. Swensen

The business case for health-care quality improvement is presented. We contend that investment in process improvement is aligned with patients' interests, the organization's reputation, and the engagement of their workforce. Four groups benefit directly from quality improvement: patients, providers, insurers, and employers. There is ample opportunity, even in today's predominantly pay-for-volume (that is, evolving toward value-based purchasing) insurance system, for providers to deliver care that is in the best interest of the patient while improving their financial performance.

Background: Mitigating or reducing the risk of harm associated with the delivery of healthcare is a policy priority. While the risk of harm can be reduced in some instances (i.e. preventable), what constitutes preventable harm remains unclear. A standardized and clear definition of preventable harm is the first step towards safer and more efficient healthcare delivery system. We aimed to summarize the definitions of preventable harm and its conceptualization in healthcare. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive electronic search of relevant databases from January 2001 to June 2011 for publications that reported a definition of preventable harm. Only English language publications were included. Definitions were coded for common concepts and themes. We included any study type, both original studies and reviews. Two reviewers screened the references for eligibility and 28% (127/460) were finally included. Data collected from studies included study type, description of the study population and setting, and data corresponding to the outcome of interest. Three reviewers extracted the data. The level of agreement between the reviewers was calculated. Results: One hundred and twenty seven studies were eligible. The three most prevalent preventable harms in the included studies were: medication adverse events (33/127 studies, 26%), central line infections (7/127, 6%) and venous thromboembolism (5/127, 4%). Seven themes or definitions for preventable harm were encountered. The top three were: presence of an identifiable modifiable cause (58/132 definitions, 44%), reasonable adaptation to a process will prevent future recurrence (30/132, 23%), adherence to guidelines (22/132, 16%). Data on the validity or operational characteristic (e.g., accuracy, reproducibility) of definitions were limited. Conclusions: There is limited empirical evidence of the validity and reliability of the available definitions of preventable harm, such that no single one is supported by high quality evidence. The most common definition is “presence of an identifiable, modifiable cause of harm”.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a strong risk factor for lung cancer. Published studies about variations of genes encoding glutathione metabolism, DNA repair, and inflammatory response pathways in susceptibility to COPD were inconclusive. We evaluated 470 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) from 56 genes of these three pathways in 620 cases and 893 controls to identify susceptibility markers for COPD risk, using existing resources. We assessed SNP- and gene-level effects adjusting for sex, age, and smoking status. Differential genetic effects on disease risk with and without lung cancer were also assessed; cumulative risk models were established. Twenty-one SNPs were found to be significantly associated with risk of COPD (P < 0.01); gene-based analyses confirmed two genes (GCLC and GSS) and identified three additional genes (GSTO2, ERCC1, and RRM1). Carrying 12 high-risk alleles may increase risk by 2.7-fold; eight SNPs altered COPD risk without lung cancer by 3.1-fold and 4 SNPs altered the risk with lung cancer by 2.3-fold. Our findings indicate that multiple genetic variations in the three selected pathways contribute to COPD risk through GCLC, GSS, GSTO2, ERCC1, and RRM1 genes. Functional studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms of these genes in the development of COPD, lung cancer, or both. Cancer Prev Res; 5(3); 365–73. ©2011 AACR.

The authors present Mayo Clinic’s Value Creation System, a coherent systems engineering approach to delivering a single high-value practice. There are 4 tightly linked, interdependent phases of the system: alignment, discovery, managed diffusion, and measurement. The methodology is described and examples of the results to date are presented. The Value Creation System has been demonstrated to improve the quality of patient care while reducing costs and increasing productivity.

Healthcare costs are unsustainable. The authors propose a solution to control costs without rationing (deliberate withholding of effective care) or payment reductions to doctors and hospitals. Three physician-led strategies comprise this solution: reduce (1) overuse of health services, (2) preventable complications and (3) waste within healthcare processes. These challenges know no borders.

Developing highly reliable care for patients requires changes in some traditional beliefs of medical practice, an evolution toward a “system” of health care, the disciplined application of scientific principles, modifications in the way all future providers are trained, and a fundamental understanding by leadership that quality must become a business strategy and core work, not an expense or regulatory requirement. Quality at Mayo is defined as a composite of outcomes, safety, and service. A 4-part strategic construct focusing on Culture, Infrastructure, Engineering, and Execution has been developed to guide improvement activities and to ensure a comprehensive approach to better patient care. The Mayo Clinic experience has led to a greater understanding of the leadership commitment, organizational challenges, and the breadth of initiatives necessary to achieve highly reliable care.