Historical Context of Quality and Safety: From Industry to Healthcare

 

The history of quality and safety in healthcare is fascinating and pertinent to understanding the evolution of terminology, incentives, and practices in this field. This discussion will delve into how concepts from industrial management made their way into healthcare, shaping the quality and safety landscape we know today.

Historical Context of Quality and Safety: From Industry to Healthcare

The foundation of quality and safety in healthcare can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution, particularly towards its end. A key figure during this time was Frederick Taylor, who developed the concept of "Scientific Management." Taylor's work focused on mass production and assembly line methods, emphasizing efficiency through time and motion studies. He distinguished between two groups: the well-educated engineers who designed processes and the uneducated workers who were expected to follow orders without deviation. This approach, known as "Taylorism," transformed industries worldwide, leading to the mass production techniques still in use today.

Taylorism, however, is often criticized for its exploitative nature. Taylor believed that workers, whom he regarded as mere cogs in a machine, were inherently unmotivated and needed strict management to ensure productivity. He famously stated that workers would be fired if they deviated from prescribed methods, reflecting a mentality that undervalued the contributions and autonomy of frontline workers. Despite its success in industrial production, Taylorism was later criticized for failing to adapt to the increasing complexity of modern industries, leading to a decline in quality and competitiveness in firms that adhered to this rigid mindset.

The Shift to Healthcare: The Flexner Report and the Evolution of Clinical Education
Around the turn of the 20th century, the principles of quality and safety began to influence healthcare, particularly in the United States. The Flexner Report, published between 1816 and 1920, revolutionized medical education by setting new standards for clinical education and professional licensing. As a result, over half of U.S. medical schools were forced to close due to insufficient educational standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This period marked the beginning of hospital-based medical education, integrating clinical work into medical training and laying the groundwork for evidence-based medicine. By 1912, a significant milestone was achieved in healthcare: for the first time, a random patient consulting a doctor had better than a 50-50 chance of benefiting from the encounter. This shift, known as the "Great Divide," signaled the growing importance of scientific research in clinical practice.
The Craft of Medicine: From Individualized Care to Professional Practice

In the early days of Western medicine, the ideal physician was expected to place the patient's healthcare needs above all else, drawing on extensive knowledge and experience to craft unique diagnoses and treatment regimens. This "craft-based" approach emphasized the physician's personal competence, with any errors perceived as professional failures. However, this individualistic mindset began to change as medicine evolved.
Today, medicine is increasingly seen as a professional practice, where groups of peers treat similar patients in shared settings. This collaborative approach allows for planned, coordinated care that adapts to the specific needs of individual patients. For example, in pediatric oncology, chemotherapy regimens are predetermined based on evidence, with frontline clinicians following established protocols. This shift reflects a broader trend towards standardization and the use of evidence-based practices in healthcare.

The Role of Industry Leaders in Quality Improvement: Walter Shewhart and W. Edwards Deming
As industries continued to grow, variation in processes became a significant challenge. Two influential figures, Walter Shewhart and W. Edwards Deming, emerged as pioneers of quality improvement. Deming, often referred to as the father of quality improvement, emphasized the importance of reducing variation and improving processes through scientific methods.
A notable study from this period is the Hawthorne Works experiment, conducted at a Western Electric plant in Illinois. The study aimed to determine the effect of lighting on worker productivity. Surprisingly, the results showed that productivity increased not because of the lighting conditions but because the workers knew they were being observed. This phenomenon, known as the "Hawthorne Effect," highlights the impact of observation on human behavior, a concept still relevant in quality improvement efforts today.

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

In his influential work, Walters posits that the primary objective of industry is to establish economically viable methods for satisfying human desires. This idea introduces the concept of the "voice of the customer," which remains pivotal over time. Factories, in this context, produce goods that fulfill the needs and desires of the population. While there is a clear distinction between essential goods and luxury items—those which are desired but not necessary—the focus remains on the need to attentively listen to the customer's voice. This principle extends beyond the realm of goods production to encompass sectors such as healthcare, where the minimum standard is to avoid catastrophic events, such as hospital-acquired infections, and optimize outcomes.

To achieve this, it is critical to not only listen to the customer's voice but also to anticipate and meet needs that customers may not yet be aware of, particularly in areas like communication, nurturing, education, and understanding, especially during challenging times within the healthcare system. The ultimate goal of industry, as Walters articulates, is to fulfill human wants through economic means, minimizing human effort by employing scientific methods and modern statistical concepts. These methods establish boundaries within which routine efforts must operate to remain economical. This approach underpins the foundations of quality improvement.

 

In 1924, Walter A. Shewhart, an important figure in this field, sent a memorandum to his supervisor outlining his theory and invention of using statistics in operations and manufacturing. This initiative marked the beginning of a systematic approach to measuring and improving production processes. Shewhart's work included the creation of the first control chart, which is a critical tool in quality improvement. While Shewhart was a proficient statistician, his ideas gained widespread practical application thanks to W. Edwards Deming, a mathematician with a more charismatic and practical approach. Deming took Shewhart's concepts and developed them into what we now recognize as Statistical Process Control and the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

 

Deming's influence extended beyond the United States. He served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and later played a crucial role in post-war Japan, where he taught these techniques, significantly contributing to the transformation of Japanese industry. Japan's manufacturing and technology sectors, particularly the automotive industry, became global leaders in productivity and profitability due to these methods.
The transition from the negative aspects of Taylorism to a more holistic view of continuous improvement in production is essential. Deming once remarked that while Shewhart was brilliant, he had a tendency to make things complex. This complexity drove Deming to spend considerable time refining Shewhart's ideas and presenting them in a more accessible manner.

A cornerstone of Deming's philosophy is the assertion that "if you can't describe what you're doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing." This perspective is evident in Japanese manufacturing plants, where executives work closely with the production floor staff to ensure a deep understanding of the processes. When problems arise, the entire executive team engages directly at the site of the issue, emphasizing the importance of process comprehension.
Deming taught that by adopting appropriate management principles, organizations could simultaneously increase quality and reduce costs by minimizing waste. This concept, deeply rooted in Japanese manufacturing practices, is encapsulated in the term "muda," which refers to waste. The reduction of waste, rework, staff attrition, and litigation, coupled with increased customer loyalty, are key outcomes of this approach. Deming emphasized that organizations should view manufacturing as an interconnected system rather than a collection of disjointed parts.
Deming also demonstrated that when organizations focus primarily on cost, both quality and cost suffer over time. Conversely, when the focus shifts to quality, defined by the ratio of quality to cost, quality improves, and costs decrease. This principle highlights the importance of reducing workarounds and waste, which is particularly relevant in healthcare settings where inefficiencies can be frustrating and counterproductive.

A notable event in the history of management theory occurred in the autumn of 1963 when Konosuke Matsushita, the founder of Panasonic, delivered a speech at the Thirteenth International Management Conference in New York City. Known as the "We Will Win and You Will Lose" speech, Matsushita's address was a critique of Western manufacturing practices, particularly those rooted in Taylorism. He argued that Western companies, with their rigid division between executives and workers, were doomed to fail in the face of Japan's more integrated and collective approach to management.

Matsushita asserted that Japanese companies had moved beyond the Taylorist model, recognizing that the complexity and uncertainty of the modern business environment required the intellectual commitment of all employees. This approach contrasts sharply with the Western focus on the separation of thinking and doing, which Matsushita viewed as outdated and inadequate for meeting contemporary challenges.

Reflecting on these historical developments, it becomes apparent that elements of Taylorism persist in various sectors, including healthcare, where a paternalistic approach still influences physician-patient relationships. A critical examination of these biases—whether racial, religious, social, or otherwise—is essential for advancing beyond outdated management paradigms and ensuring that industry practices are both equitable and effective.
The discussion then turns to the importance of quality and safety, introducing the concept of the normal distribution of a sample mean. In practical terms, this concept is visualized in the form of a control chart, which tracks data over time to identify deviations from the mean and control limits, typically set at three standard deviations from the mean. This method of monitoring and controlling processes is foundational in quality improvement initiatives.
In conclusion, Deming's teachings emphasize the necessity of continuous improvement and the reduction of waste to enhance quality and reduce costs. His principles have had a profound impact on both Western and Eastern approaches to management, demonstrating that a focus on quality, rather than cost, leads to sustainable success. This historical perspective not only highlights the evolution of management theories but also underscores the importance of critically examining and adapting these theories to meet contemporary challenges.

Control Charts and Their Significance in Quality Management
Introduction to Control Charts: Control charts are essential tools in quality management, allowing for the continuous measurement of process performance over time. These charts help to determine whether a process is within control by measuring deviations from the mean, particularly focusing on deviations beyond three standard deviations from the mean. The primary goal of a control chart is to identify when a process is out of control, prompting the necessary interventions to bring it back into control. This concept marks the beginning of a systematic approach to quality control, especially in the context of post-industrial revolution developments in medicine.
Judgment vs. Learning in Medical Practice: In medical practice, there has traditionally been a dichotomy between judgment-based and learning-based approaches. The judgment-based approach typically involves identifying who is at fault for a deviation or error, often leading to punitive measures. This is what some might refer to as the "ABC" of medicine—accuse, blame, and criticize. This method focuses on identifying individuals who made errors, such as incorrect orders, dosages, or omissions.
Conversely, the learning-based approach encourages inquiry into the underlying reasons for deviations. Instead of asking "who" made a mistake, the focus shifts to understanding "why" the deviation occurred, "what" caused it, and "how" it could have been prevented. This approach forms the basis of root cause analysis, often referred to as the "five whys," and moves away from blaming individuals towards understanding systemic issues.
Moving Towards a Process-Oriented Perspective: The transition from an individual competence-based model to a process-oriented approach in medicine involves examining the collective performance of a healthcare team and the processes they follow. Control charts are instrumental in this shift as they allow for the measurement and analysis of process variations against established standards. By understanding these variations, healthcare providers can begin to ask critical questions and analyze data to drive continuous improvement.

Understanding Variations and Quality Improvement: In a healthcare setting, variations in processes can have significant implications, such as the time patients wait for diagnostic results or to see a specialist. For example, in the case of waiting times for CT scan results, the distribution of waiting times can be mapped on a control chart. Times that fall within a certain range may be deemed acceptable, while those that deviate significantly from the mean represent unacceptable delays, indicative of potential quality issues.

Traditional quality assurance methods focused on eliminating extreme deviations, or the "tail" of the distribution. However, this approach still leaves a considerable portion of the process with suboptimal quality. The modern approach to quality improvement aims to shift the entire process distribution towards higher quality, reducing both the mean deviation and the standard deviation. This shift ensures that the process consistently operates within acceptable quality parameters.

Cost Management and Quality Improvement in Healthcare: In healthcare, managing costs while improving quality is a complex challenge. There are two primary strategies for coping with cost and quality challenges:

1. Focusing on Top-Line Revenue:
- Maximizing Revenue: Healthcare providers may focus on maximizing revenue by maintaining the status quo, even if it involves using outdated equipment, as long as it remains functional. For example, a dental practice might continue using an old X-ray machine to avoid the cost of purchasing new equipment.
- Market Power and Expansion: Another approach involves consolidating market power, enabling providers to negotiate better deals with suppliers and insurance companies. This can lead to a dominant market position but may result in inefficient growth.
- Vigorous Competition: Competing vigorously for service contracts and negotiating favorable terms with insurance companies is another common strategy. Some providers might also offer concierge services, adding value through premium experiences to attract and retain patients.

2. Shifting Focus to Bottom-Line Costs:
- Eliminating Waste: A more sustainable approach focuses on eliminating waste and reducing unnecessary costs. This includes providing only necessary care, avoiding redundant tests or procedures, and delivering services at the lowest possible cost without compromising quality.
- Improving Efficiency: Enhancing efficiency in healthcare operations is crucial. For example, optimizing operating room schedules and minimizing delays can significantly reduce costs. Furthermore, reducing waste in areas such as expired medications, preventable hospital-acquired infections, and underutilized facilities can lead to substantial cost savings.
Ethical Considerations in Cost Management: The ethical implications of cost management in healthcare cannot be overlooked. For instance, the high cost of certain medications, such as those for hemophilia, raises questions about resource allocation and access to care. In some countries, expensive treatments may not be offered due to their limited use and high cost, leading to difficult ethical decisions about who receives care and at what cost.

The Future of Quality and Cost Management in Healthcare: The future of healthcare lies in a fundamental shift towards more bottom-line cost control, waste elimination, and quality improvement. Quality should become the core business focus, with the understanding that higher quality ultimately drives down costs. Eliminating inappropriate variations in care and documenting continuous improvement over time are essential components of this strategy.
Conclusion: In conclusion, improving process management and quality in healthcare requires a systematic approach that emphasizes learning, efficiency, and ethical considerations. By adopting control charts and focusing on process improvement, healthcare providers can achieve better outcomes for patients while managing costs effectively. The shift towards quality-driven care is not only necessary but also inevitable in the evolving landscape of healthcare.

The process of quality improvement centers around analyzing and refining outcomes and understanding whether they meet the expectations of the customer. It is crucial to determine how we can further optimize these outcomes to enhance customer satisfaction. In healthcare, our focus is not on marginal improvements, such as enhancing a luxurious experience for someone at a high-end hotel, but rather on significant and meaningful customer satisfaction, which in our case pertains to patient care.

The key to quality improvement lies in understanding the data. By leveraging simple tools and methods, we can transform quality improvement into a robust organizational process. The principles of Deming highlight the importance of organizing everything around value-added frontline work processes. Therefore, it is imperative to constantly ask whether a specific action adds value to the patient. For instance, while extensive documentation in electronic medical records may not add direct value to the patient, critical information such as a patient's previous surgeries or severe complications must be accurately recorded and accessible.

Healthcare processes are inherently complex, and there is often a discrepancy between theory and reality. Theory tends to be an abstraction, whereas the actual work occurs in the complex, often challenging, environment of the frontline. This complexity underscores the need for frontline healthcare workers to actively participate in quality improvement initiatives. The wealth of practical knowledge possessed by bedside nurses, for instance, is invaluable, and their insights must be integrated into the process.

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leaders play a crucial role in providing the necessary tools and training to facilitate this improvement, structuring quality work discussions as part of regular work assignments. Quality improvement should not be an additional burden on employees, such as calling them in on weekends for projects, but rather integrated into their daily work.
The intersection of industry practices with medicine has led to significant advancements in how we approach quality improvement. Breakthrough improvements, such as the development of antibiotics or the implementation of electronic medical records, often result in significant performance gains. However, these breakthroughs require substantial investment, careful planning, and often involve limited workforce participation.
In contrast, incremental improvements are grassroots-based, require low investment, and empower frontline workers. These small, continuous improvements not only enhance customer satisfaction but also build morale and foster teamwork. When combined with breakthrough improvements, incremental improvements can lead to significant, sustained advancements in quality.

Organizations are often filled with opportunities for incremental improvement, or "low-hanging fruit," that may not be immediately obvious. By using quality improvement tools and knowledge, these opportunities can be identified and addressed. Data plays a crucial role in this process, but it is important to recognize that not all data is meaningful. Organizations may collect vast amounts of data, but without careful analysis, this data can obscure the true areas needing improvement.

Making informed decisions based on data requires a balance between empirical evidence and clinical experience. It is not enough to rely solely on gut feelings or unquestioningly on data; the best decisions often come from a synthesis of both. As quality improvement leaders, it is our responsibility to ensure that frontline workers have access to relevant data and understand how to use it to improve their performance.

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a crucial tool in minimizing variation and improving processes. While some variation in processes is inevitable, the goal of quality improvement is to reduce this variation as much as possible. Patients, who are the primary customers in healthcare, are particularly sensitive to variation in their care. They notice and react to inconsistencies in their treatment, which can significantly impact their overall experience.
Quality improvement efforts should focus first on reducing variation and then on improving process design and capability. The concept of the "aggregation of marginal gains" illustrates how small, consistent improvements can compound over time, leading to significant advancements in quality.

In healthcare, continuous process improvement should be a routine part of practice, not something reserved for large, formal studies. By fostering a culture of quality improvement, we can create numerous small learning opportunities that contribute to overall better patient care.

It is worth noting that a substantial portion of routine medical practice has historically had little basis in published scientific research. Although this has improved over time, there is still a need for ongoing efforts to integrate scientific evidence into everyday practice to ensure the highest quality of care.

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

 

An illustrative example of this discrepancy can be observed in the management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) within Intermountain Healthcare. The institution introduced a protocol advocating for tidal volumes of approximately 6 milliliters per kilogram in adult patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Post-implementation interviews revealed that 92% of physicians believed they were compliant with this protocol. However, subsequent audits demonstrated that only 4% adhered to the recommended guidelines. The majority administered tidal volumes ranging between 10 to 12 milliliters per kilogram, starkly deviating from the evidence-based standard.
This example underscores the critical need for regular audits and data tracking to align perceived practice with actual practice. By reducing personal biases and embracing new data, clinicians can enhance protocol compliance over time. Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge practical limitations inherent to protocol implementation, ensuring flexibility to accommodate individual patient needs.

The outcomes of the ARDS protocol at Intermountain Healthcare were noteworthy. Physicians experienced reduced time navigating ventilator settings due to the streamlined, automated nature of the protocol. This led to better-coordinated care, expedited ICU discharges, and improved patient survival rates. Additionally, there were observed improvements in outcomes such as arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), albeit these may be considered less critical.
A fundamental principle derived from this experience is the importance of minimizing variation in clinical practice. Some advocate that consistent application of a protocol, even if not optimally designed, can lead to reduced error rates and lower costs. This standardization facilitates the application of the scientific method to systematically refine and improve protocols. The ultimate goal should be to not only reduce variation but also to ensure that clinical practices align with the most effective and evidence-based approaches.

In summary, the journey from industrial principles, such as Taylorism, to their integration into medicine emphasizes the pivotal roles of quality and safety in healthcare. Continuous introspection, data-driven audits, and a commitment to embracing evidence-based practices are essential for advancing clinical excellence.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

​