临床医生在质量和创新:一个新的学术途径的10年定性研究。

Joanne Goldman, Brian M Wong, Gillian Hawker, Wendy Levinson, Kaveh G Shojania
{"title":"临床医生在质量和创新:一个新的学术途径的10年定性研究。","authors":"Joanne Goldman, Brian M Wong, Gillian Hawker, Wendy Levinson, Kaveh G Shojania","doi":"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite widespread attention to addressing healthcare quality problems, few academic medical centers provide an academic pathway for faculty engaged in such work. This qualitative case study examined physicians and department leaders' perceptions and experiences of a novel \"Clinician in Quality and Innovation\" (CQI) academic pathway created in 2012. Interviews were conducted with 23 CQI faculty and 7 department leaders. Of the department's 20 divisions, 15 included at least one CQI with a median of 5 per division. Findings demonstrated how the academic track aligned with, and legitimized, CQIs' interests, and allowed for a wide range of \"quality and innovation\" activities (eg, improving healthcare processes, developing models of care, clinical informatics). Contextual factors such as synergies with hospital-based initiatives for healthcare improvement and changes to academic promotion criteria were instrumental in CQI's performance of the academic role. Despite promotion successes, CQIs described some tensions between academic and clinical role expectations.</p>","PeriodicalId":101338,"journal":{"name":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","volume":" ","pages":"220-226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Clinician in Quality and Innovation: A Qualitative Study of a Novel Academic Pathway at 10 Years.\",\"authors\":\"Joanne Goldman, Brian M Wong, Gillian Hawker, Wendy Levinson, Kaveh G Shojania\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite widespread attention to addressing healthcare quality problems, few academic medical centers provide an academic pathway for faculty engaged in such work. This qualitative case study examined physicians and department leaders' perceptions and experiences of a novel \\\"Clinician in Quality and Innovation\\\" (CQI) academic pathway created in 2012. Interviews were conducted with 23 CQI faculty and 7 department leaders. Of the department's 20 divisions, 15 included at least one CQI with a median of 5 per division. Findings demonstrated how the academic track aligned with, and legitimized, CQIs' interests, and allowed for a wide range of \\\"quality and innovation\\\" activities (eg, improving healthcare processes, developing models of care, clinical informatics). Contextual factors such as synergies with hospital-based initiatives for healthcare improvement and changes to academic promotion criteria were instrumental in CQI's performance of the academic role. Despite promotion successes, CQIs described some tensions between academic and clinical role expectations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"220-226\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000248\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管解决医疗质量问题受到广泛关注,但很少有学术医疗中心为从事此类工作的教师提供学术途径。本定性案例研究考察了医生和部门领导对2012年创建的新型“临床医生质量与创新”(CQI)学术途径的看法和经验。采访了23位CQI教师和7位部门领导。在该部门的20个部门中,有15个部门至少包括一个CQI,每个部门的中位数为5。研究结果表明,学术轨道如何与cqi的利益保持一致,并使其合法化,并允许广泛的“质量和创新”活动(例如,改进医疗保健流程,开发护理模式,临床信息学)。背景因素,如与医院医疗保健改善倡议的协同作用和学术晋升标准的变化,有助于CQI发挥学术作用。尽管促销成功,CQIs描述了学术和临床角色期望之间的一些紧张关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Clinician in Quality and Innovation: A Qualitative Study of a Novel Academic Pathway at 10 Years.

Despite widespread attention to addressing healthcare quality problems, few academic medical centers provide an academic pathway for faculty engaged in such work. This qualitative case study examined physicians and department leaders' perceptions and experiences of a novel "Clinician in Quality and Innovation" (CQI) academic pathway created in 2012. Interviews were conducted with 23 CQI faculty and 7 department leaders. Of the department's 20 divisions, 15 included at least one CQI with a median of 5 per division. Findings demonstrated how the academic track aligned with, and legitimized, CQIs' interests, and allowed for a wide range of "quality and innovation" activities (eg, improving healthcare processes, developing models of care, clinical informatics). Contextual factors such as synergies with hospital-based initiatives for healthcare improvement and changes to academic promotion criteria were instrumental in CQI's performance of the academic role. Despite promotion successes, CQIs described some tensions between academic and clinical role expectations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信