A Call to Dialogue on PI CME

January 27, 2010 at 2:22 am Leave a comment

Over the next few months I am going to comment on each of the common elements that I think comprise an effective approach to PI (CME). Perhaps you will feel it is important to jump in the discussion. By doing so maybe we can create a national dialogue leading to agreement on what we mean by performance improvement, how we approach performance improvement, how we can share our success, and show how CME is a “bridge to quality” in healthcare.

So here we go. Here is my list of common elements in performance improvement.

  • Recognition of the importance of context.
  • A specific definition of desired performance.
  • A measured assessment of current performance
  • A careful “data based” analysis of the gap between current and desired performance.
  • A logical fact based assessment of the root causes of the gap between the current and the desired performance.
  • Carefully selected and designed interventions that address specific root causes of the performance problem.
  • Execution of the planned intervention(s).
  • A measured assessment of the impact of the intervention on current performance to assess the extent to which the desired performance has been achieved.
  • A monitoring and approval process throughout the entire improvement effort involving those affected by each decision made an action taken in an effort tot achieve the desired outcomes.
  • A mechanism to standardize improvements.
  • A way to communicate successes.

We need a common approach to PI CME for several reasons. First, there needs to be an agreement in the CME enterprise on what we mean we talk about performance improvement. This gives us a common language.

Second, there needs to be common elements we all address in an approach to PI CME. The AMA provides a “high level” structure to use in making decisions about PI CME credit. This is helpful. But this skeleton is not very useful when it comes to understanding how to go about doing the real work involved in improving performance. Common elements for performance improvement give us a way to reduce variation in our approaches to PI CME. Less variation means we have a stable system with more opportunity to improve our approach to improvement.

Third, a common approach to PI makes it easier to benchmark, share successes and spread innovation. If we are all talking the same language and approaching the work of performance in the same or very similar way we cut down the cycle time required to implement positive changes in our physician communities.

Fourth, it will make requests for funding easier. Funders will know what they are supporting. They will have confidence that positive outcomes will result from the PI efforts. They will have a structure to use in identifying strong proposals with a high probability of success.

You are invited. Join in and let’s see what we can create.


Entry filed under: PI CME.

Grassley and COI CME in the News and on the Blogs January 27th, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


January 2010
« Dec   Feb »

Most Recent Posts

%d bloggers like this: