| 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 11 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
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
#20,187,333
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,450
of 199,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#72
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 199,767 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 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.