To the Editor: Clinical practice is constantly evolving, and while doctors are accomplished in recognising the need for continual personal development and improvement, they traditionally have been difficult to engage in health care system redesign.1,2 Quality improvement (QI) initiatives are often met with disengagement, owing to a perception that they provide little clinical benefit and that resources could be better spent elsewhere.1
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- 1. Millar JA. Is money spent on quality improvement better spent on clinical care? - Yes. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 640. <MJA full text>
- 2. Runciman WB. Is money spent on quality improvement better spent on clinical care? - No. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 641. <MJA full text>
- 3. Rao BS, Lowe GO, Hughes AJ. Reduced emergency calls and improved weekend discharge after introduction of a new electronic handover system. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 569-573. <MJA full text>
- 4. Patow CA, Karpovich K, Riesenberg LA, et al. Residents’ engagement in quality improvement: a systematic review of the literature. Acad Med 2009; 84: 17l57-1764.
- 5. Headrick LA, Richardson A, Priebe GP. Continuous improvement learning for residents. Pediatrics 1998; 101: 768-773; discussion 773-774.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
We acknowledge the work completed by previous HMO improvement managers at Melbourne Health and, in particular, Henry Su for providing an initial evaluation of the program. We would like to thank Tristan Vasquez and all the members of the Transformation and Quality Team at Melbourne Health for their valuable guidance and support.
We have both been HMO improvement managers at Melbourne Health. The first pilot year of the HMO Improvement Program was funded through the Victorian Department of Health Redesigning Hospital Care Program. The role is now self-funded by Melbourne Health.