Abstract
Quality Improvement (QI) tools abound to help clinicians improve the quality of their care. Such tools, however, assume one knows the process that needs attention. A systematic approach is thus needed for selecting the QI activities that have the greatest impact on quality. This study applies Functional Job Analysis (FJA) to systematically identify areas in preventive care most suitable for high-impact QI efforts. Seven internal medicine practice personnel served as subject matter experts (SMEs) in multiple FJA style focus groups to identify the tasks required to ensure successful execution of eight preventive-care measures. Tasks with the greatest prevalence across measures and highest human error consequence ratings were deemed most suitable for QI. SMEs generated improvement recommendations for the identified tasks via focus groups. Tasks with greatest cross-measure prevalence centered on information gathering; tasks with the greatest potential consequence of error centered on medication management, testing and test follow-up (MMTTF). SMEs reported time, space, staffing, and equipment constraints as fundamental barriers impacting all aspects of primary care. Barriers to successful information gathering included issues with front desk staff and the electronic health record. Barriers to MMTTF included lab workflow and patient-related factors. Improvement recommendations included strategic staffing, technology-based solutions, and added in-house testing capabilities. FJA successfully identified two clear, distinct clinic workflow areas that could benefit from QI initiatives. Although our work is limited by its single-site design, results are consistent with prior multi-site FJA research. Contrary to traditional, disease-specific QI approaches, our work identified a core set of processes that, if optimized, can improve care across multiple clinical conditions, and presented a novel application of a classic HR tool to make more systematic QI decisions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by a Healthcare Innovations Grant from Baylor College of Medicine.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board protocol # 42846
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are available upon written request to the corresponding author at hysong{at}bcm.edu, per institutional policy.
