Quality Circles

Quality circles are originally linked to Japanese manufacturing techniques and management. Japanese were introduced and inspired to quality circles from Edward Deming in 1900 to 1993, who was statistician in the government in the United States. In 1950’s, the quality circles originated in the United States. At that time they started first in factories, where workers discussed and studied quality control. “In its first issue (April 1962), Genba to QC recommended the formation of "quality circles." This may be the first use of the term. During Phase 3 (1960s to present), many quality circles have been registered. The first registrant was Iwau Manabe and his quality circle at NTT Corporation in May 1962. The spirit of Manabe and other pioneers continues in the quality circles of today” (American Society for Quality, 2013, para.1).

The main characteristics of quality circles

1. Quality circles are the small group of employees, approximately 8 to 10 employees. Less than 5 employees would cause the group to lose its vitality, and it can cause the group to become inactive. More than 15 people in the group could also cause the circle to fail because not everyone would have a chance to actively participate and contribute to the group. For those reasons, 8 to 10 employees in circle are recommended because it is manageable.

2. Quality circles do the same work and it is organized in the same work area. The group should not be within inter-departmental because employees participating in circle should be on the same page. That would be only possible if they are in the same department or working similar jobs. A designation of members does not necessarily need be equal but the work in which they all are engaged should be common.

3. Engagement in quality circles should be voluntarily. Employees should not feel pressured to join the circle. It is based on voluntary principles.

4. Quality circles should meet regularly. Usually, quality circles should meet every week for an hour, but they can also meet few times a month depending on the agreement between members. 

Feedback Loops

       Feedback groups are made of people, but this unique feedback group is an automated system designed to initiate a phone conversation with patients and ask for their feedback on visit they had to the health care organization they visited. With this system, health care organization can improve their services based on patients’ recommendations. Feedback Loops can improve or diminish changes in a system. According to Carleton College, “positive feedback loops enhance or amplify changes; this tends to move a system away from its equilibrium state and make it more unstable. Negative feedback loops tend to dampen or buffer changes; this tends to hold system to some equilibrium state making it more stable” (2012, para.1). 

       Feedback loop is the system arrangement that creates output from one point to ultimately influence input to that point. For instance, the work output of people can increase the services that are available to those people, which can increase the expectancy of life, also increasing more people, which can increase work output even more. Then, the loop will start over again. 

Quality Circles and Feedback Loops Can be Used to Strengthen Quality Management

There are three ways that Quality Circle and Feedback Loops can be used to strengthen quality management. The first ways is to use Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA). This particularly works in closing the loops on circles and strengthening quality management. This is the process that starts in asking employees to note how the process is flowing currently, gathering data on the present process, discussing and implementation of the suggestions, identifying areas that need development, documenting weaknesses in process, and checking how the new process is working (Taylor, 2013, para.4). In the study performed by Taylor it was critical to study PCDA cycle and take time to replicate about developments that were already made. He suggested that it could take few months to collect accurate data because the measures that they were looking are daily, weekly and monthly because they wanted to be sure that the results are at the new standard. This kind of reassurance is great way for organization to see the bottom line as it relates to saving and cutting cost. Employees involved in process need to know how to deal with issues and become part of the resolution of the issues.

The second way to strength quality management is to use standard work. Standard work is the process of following employees and recording their starting and ending time when they do the task.  The reason of standard work is to make one way of doing a process. With one way of doing a process, we will be sure that all the steps are completed and it will ensure that safety and quality is applied. For example, checking in patient takes 15 minutes, therefore in one hour doctor can see four patients. Then, this process is taken to next level ensuring that enough staff is working based on the appointment schedule.

The last way to strength quality management is problem solving. Problem solving process begins with identifying the problem. Then, once the problem is identified, search for the root cause is performed using the 5 why’s to come to the conclusion why the problem occurred in the first place. “The 5 Why’s is a technique used in the Analyze phase of the Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) methodology. It is a great Six Sigma tool that does not involve data segmentation, hypothesis testing, regression or other advanced statistical tools, and in many cases can be completed without a data collection plan” (Six Sigma, 2015, para.1).

Cost and Management of Care

Patients are very concerned about how can they afford health care services with the rising health care cost. Affordable Health Care Act is the program that has one and only purpose to ensure that patients are safe through health care. Regrettably, in the process of ensuring patient safety it has created a change in the pay ability for services, which ultimately reduced the opportunity for patients to have basic and important procedures completed. The rising health care cost is being measured inaccurate. According to Kaplan and Porter, “In 2011, health care spending used about seventeen percent of the national gross Domestic Product and it continues to increase. Instead of looking at the cost of care for a specific procedure, the healthcare arena has appraised the cost of specialty or departmental cost of a patient’s procedure” (2011, para.1).  Furthermore, incorrect payments and billing of patients procedure cost feign the expertise of care.

For the health care sector, having a value is a goal. To achieve that goal, patient needs to properly measure the value in the outcomes and the cost at patient level. Also, outcomes should be measured from recovery to survival. One more part of value that needs to be important is to measure the cost for delivery of outcomes. Rising health care cost has become burden to all Americans. A more balanced technique when it comes with dealing with health care cost is the biggest obstacle that America has for the economic status not to breakdown completely.

References

American Society for Quality. (2013). The history of the quality circle. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from http://asq.org/qic/display-item/?item=12734

Carleton College. (2012). Feedback loops. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/models/loops.html

Kaplan, R. & Porter, M. (2011). The big idea: how to solve the cost crisis in health care. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from https://hbr.org/2011/09/how-to-solve-the-cost-crisis-in-health-care

Six Sigma. (2015). Determine the root cause: 5 Why’s. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/cause-effect/determine-root-cause-5-whys/

Taylor, M. (2013). Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2013/09/11/bmjqs-2013-001862.full.pdf%2Bhtml%20