↓ Skip to main content

The role of quality control circles in sustained improvement of medical quality

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
The role of quality control circles in sustained improvement of medical quality
Published in
SpringerPlus, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-141
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin-run Wang, Yang Wang, Yan Lou, Ying Li, Xing-guo Zhang

Abstract

We used quality control circles (QCC) followed by the PDCA Deming cycle and analyzed the application of QCC to the sustained improvement of a medical institution in Zhejiang province. Analyses of the tangible and intangible achievements of QCC revealed that the achievement indices for reductions in internal errors, reductions in costs, improvements in the degree of patient satisfaction, improvements in work quality, and improvements in economic performance were 109.84% ± 16.47%, 135.04% ± 50.33%, 126.26% ± 53.69%, 100.58% ± 22.83%, and 104.07% ± 5.45%, respectively. The improvements in these areas were 61.12% ± 13.2%, 60.47% ± 28.91%, 34.41% ± 22.96%, 49.22% ± 25.39%, and 73.70% ± 5.24%, respectively. The intangible achievements were reflected as follows: 5% of QCC members showed an activity growth value of 1-2 points, 83% 1-2 points, 12% more than 2 points. As a result, QCC activity showed prominent results in fostering long-lasting improvement in the quality of medical institutions in terms of both tangible and intangible factors. In short, QCC can be used as an effective tool to improve medical quality.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 28%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Engineering 9 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 8 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2013.
All research outputs
#2,898,538
of 3,631,524 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#542
of 742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,790
of 85,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,631,524 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 742 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 85,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.