National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix B: Letter of Invitation
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Rosters." Institute of Medicine. 2000. Exploring Innovation and Quality Improvement in Health Care Micro-Systems: A Cross-Case Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10096.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Rosters." Institute of Medicine. 2000. Exploring Innovation and Quality Improvement in Health Care Micro-Systems: A Cross-Case Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10096.
×
Page 70

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX A Example of Thin and Thick Description for Qualitative Analysis THICK DESCRIPTION I was interested in end of life care, but it really started as an interest in pain and pain management. . . . We put together a pain steering committee. Physicians weren’t convinced that pain and pain management was an issue. They wanted us to do more baseline data gathering, which was fine, but we just confirmed what others had found. We had to convince them that this was an issue for us, too. We had to get through that before we could design any interventions. I struggled with nurses and physicians to get them to appreciate work that had been done elsewhere and not reinvent the wheel. We got to the point where we had all this data but we weren’t doing anything. A lot of the steering group members started to drop out because they couldn’t see any value in what we were doing. It’s hard for smaller departments to give the people and the time to work on projects. This was making it hard for our steering committee to be interdisciplinary. . . . We worked on getting the physicians involved in the process. We started out with a pilot unit . . . but the first few months were really hard because they thought they really did a good job with pain management already. We tried to emphasize that it wasn’t that they weren’t doing a good job, but they were very resistant, almost angry. It took a long time for them to see that we were not criticizing them. It was hard to convince them that they could improve without insulting them. But the fact was that we weren’t managing pain very well. There are various ways that health care workers let patients know that we are busy“Don’t tell us that you are having a problem because we don’t have time to deal with that.” For a lot of nurses the reason for being a nurse was to relieve pain and suffering. But then we send patients the message that we don’t have time to help you. Now, we have pain scales in every room in the hospital. The nurses didn’t want the pain scales in the room because they thought that it would be worse for the patient if we brought it to their attention, but we know that just isn’t the case. We graph pain on the vital sign sheet just below temperature and . . . document whether the pain management is effective. A lot of the nurses get stuck on getting a numberthat may be hard for a patient. So I get them to listen to what the patient says about the pain, not just a number. We can look at 65

66 INNOVATION AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN MICRO-SYSTEMS the pain rating, but also look at what the patient is doing and is able to do. The patient needs to understand that there are things that we can do, but sometimes we can’t eliminate all pain. The pain scales have #1–10, but they also have word attached to the scale: 2 = mild, 5 = moderate, 8 = severe, 10 = worse possible. So if a patient gives words, a number can be attached and it can be graphed. We work on non-pharmacologic as well as pharmacologic interventions. A conversation with the patient assesses what level of pain is acceptable. A post-surgery patient, for example, should be able to breathe deeply and get up and walk and do more for themselves each day. A terminally-ill patient should be able to eat and visit with people. When a person has pain that is a 5 or more we have to talk with them to understand what that means. The nurse is learning and the patient is learning too so that they understand that this is not about how much pain can you stand. . . . You have to make it easy to do the right thing. It has to be easy to manage pain. We developed some algorithmswe worked on them for about a year and a half. Putting them out on the unit won’t be enough. The algorithm can jog someone’s memory, but they have to have a good foundation about what to do. I’m trying to develop pain resource nursesnurses on every unit that are knowledgeable about pain, collect data, and work to improve pain management. I’m meeting a lot of resistance to do this, but we have to get this down to the people who are doing this every day. Otherwise they aren’t going to buy into the changes. . . . We have a strategic plan and goals around pain management. Without that focus, the daily, weekly, and monthly issues will start to take over. Eventually pain will only get attention when something bad happens. . . . Patients get the best care when you have health care workers who communicate very well and collaborate very well. One of the biggest problems I see is physicians not talking to each other. . . . THIN DESCRIPTION After difficulty getting nurse and physician involvement, the site has focused on responsiveness to patients’ pain. Site has pain algorithms, an interdisciplinary steering committee that sets goals, and wall charts to use in asking patients about their pain. Pain is charted as a vital sign and has become fairly well accepted, but pain management will need constant attention. Site is trying to develop a pain resource nurse. Intra- and cross-discipline communication identified as a problem.

Next: Appendix D: Pre-Interview »
Exploring Innovation and Quality Improvement in Health Care Micro-Systems: A Cross-Case Analysis Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Exploring Innovation and Quality Improvement in Health Care Micro-Systems defines and describes health care micro-systems and analyzes characteristics that enable specific micro-systems to improve the quality of care provided to their patient populations. This study reports on structured interviews used to collect primary data from 43 micro-systems providing primary and specialty care, hospice, emergency, and critical care. It summarizes responses to the interviews about how micro-systems function, what they know about their level of performance, how they improve care, the leadership needed, the barriers they have encountered, and how they have dealt with these barriers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!