Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM50494
Volume:
9 |
6 |
Jun 2025
Pages:
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Quality Improvement (QI) and Patient Safety are foundational to modern healthcare, ensuring effective, error-free, and patient-centered care. This study examines the role of QI methodologiesâincluding Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA), Lean Six Sigma, and root cause analysisâin fostering safer clinical environments. Using a mixed-methods approach (quantitative surveys and incident analysis; qualitative interviews and focus groups), we evaluate patient engagement, leadership commitment, data analytics, and safety culture. Findings reveal that system-wide commitment to QI enhances clinical outcomes, resource efficiency, and patient trust. Key challenges include staff resistance and budget constraints, mitigated through leadership and teamwork. Recommendations include embedding QI training, implementing real-time data dashboards, and establishing non-punitive error-reporting systems. We discuss easy-to-use methods like the PDSA cycle (Plan-Do-Study-Act), which helps test small changes before making them permanent. Lean Six Sigma focuses on cutting waste and errors, while root cause analysis helps find why mistakes happen so we can stop them from happening again. A big part of success is creating a culture of safety where staff feel safe speaking up about problems without fear of blame. Patients can help too â by sharing their experiences, they give doctors and nurses valuable feedback to improve care. Technology like digital records and data tracking makes spotting issues early and measuring improvements easier. While challenges like staff resistance or limited budgets exist, good leadership and teamwork can overcome them.
KEYWORDS
Publication Date
6/13/2025
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
2
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...