This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The article by Dr Chassin and colleagues¹ notes that health care quality can be defined, that there is a need to improve quality, and that current approaches to quality improvement in health care are not successful. We agree with the authors' suggestions that continuous quality improvement techniques have been adopted slowly and that market pressures do not reward excellence in quality.

Continuous quality improvement seemed to be a catchy, feel-good movement of the mid-1990s that received much energy but little commitment from the health care industry. Its principles, practices, and results are not expected to be mastered in a short-term "project of the year" approach. In fact, we believe no short-term fix is attainable.

Quality in practice yields diminishing rewards. Facing economic challenges, "health care reform" became the rallying cry of this decade. Concerns and interest in quality took a backseat to "business principles." Issues of finance . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

The Urgent Need to Improve Health Care Quality: Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality
Mark R. Chassin, Robert W. Galvin, and and the National Roundtable on Health Care Quality
JAMA. 1998;280(11):1000-1005.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT