The aim of this study was to test whether a recently developed measure of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) implementation can provide health care researchers and administrators with a tool to assist in understanding and with developing an appropriate structure for improvement efforts in hospitals. Two hundred respondents from 40 Missouri hospitals completed a 28-item survey addressing 8 domains of CQ1. Overall, hospital scores showed low implementation of a structure that supports improvement efforts. All survey domains showed acceptable psychometric results. Leadership proved to be the most important domain of CQI because it differentiated well between all levels of the scale. Because of its ease of administration and analysis, and its reliability, validity, and level differentiation results, the researchers recommend the widespread use of this tool to understand and develop a hospital's organizational structure to support improvement activities.
Shortell SM, O'Brien JL, Carman JM, et al.Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement/total quality management: concept versus implementation. Health Serv Res. 1995;30: 377-401.
2.
Cole RF, Scott WR, eds. The Quality Movement and Organization Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications Inc;2000.
3.
Ham C, Kipping R, McLeod H. Redesigning work processes in health care: lessons from the National Health Service. Milbank Q. 2003;81:415-439.
4.
Berwick DM, Godfrey AB, Roessner J. Curing Health Care: New Strategies for Quality Improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;1990.
5.
Samsa G, Matchar D. Can continuous quality improvement be assessed using randomized trials?Health Serv Res. 2000;35: 687-700.
6.
Coye MJ, Detmer DE. Quality at a crossroads. Milbank Q. 1998; 76:759-768.
7.
Meurer SJ, Rubio DM, Counte MA, et al.Development of a healthcare quality improvement measurement tool: results of a content validity study. Hosp Top. 2002;80:7-14.
8.
Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials. 2nd ed.London: B.C. Decker Inc;2000.
9.
DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications Inc;1991.
10.
Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35:382-385.
11.
Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20:259-274.
12.
Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological Testing. 7th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall;1997.
