[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    Top Down
    David Earle | Lowell General Hospital
    It appears from the diagram that the QI leadership doesn't have feedback from the outcomes portion. Additionally, the top down organization shown will eventually impede the function of the team doing the work in favor of cost, specific \"awards\" by alleged quality organizations, and pay for performance models mandated by agencies outside the hospital's control.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CMO - Surgical Momentum
    Research Letter
    December 2016

    Development of a Conceptual Model for Surgical Quality Improvement Collaboratives: Facilitating the Implementation and Evaluation of Collaborative Quality Improvement

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative, Chicago
    • 2Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
    • 3Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
    • 4Department of Hospital Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
    JAMA Surg. 2016;151(12):1181-1183. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2817

    Participation in quality improvement (QI) collaboratives has helped hospitals improve outcomes and decrease costs.1,2 As such, state-level surgical QI collaboratives have become increasingly common. However, the optimal design of an effective collaborative and its key drivers of success remain unclear. Our objective was to create a conceptual model of a surgical QI collaborative to facilitate the development, implementation, and systematic evaluation of the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC).

    A multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team of ISQIC researchers conducted a literature review and expanded and adapted key components of existing models of health care QI to create a conceptual model for a surgical QI collaborative.3,4 Feedback from QI leaders, hospital administrators, clinical frontline staff, and quality researchers guided the evolution of the model through multiple iterations until final consensus was reached. Institutional review board approval was not required, as this research did not involve human participants.