Improving Quality of Care in Substance Abuse Treatment Using Five key Process Improvement Principles

  • Kim A. Hoffman
  • Carla A. Green
  • James H. Ford II
  • Jennifer P. Wisdom
  • David H. Gustafson
  • Dennis McCarty
Article

Abstract

Process and quality improvement techniques have been successfully applied in health care arenas, but efforts to institute these strategies in alcohol and drug treatment are underdeveloped. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) teaches participating substance abuse treatment agencies to use process improvement strategies to increase client access to, and retention in, treatment. NIATx recommends five principles to promote organizational change: (1) understand and involve the customer, (2) fix key problems, (3) pick a powerful change leader, (4) get ideas from outside the organization, and (5) use rapid cycle testing. Using case studies, supplemented with cross-agency analyses of interview data, this paper profiles participating NIATx treatment agencies that illustrate successful applications of each principle. Results suggest that organizations can successfully integrate and apply the five principles as they develop and test change strategies, improving access and retention in treatment, and agencies’ financial status. Upcoming changes requiring increased provision of behavioral health care will result in greater demand for services. Treatment organizations, already struggling to meet demand and client needs, will need strategies that improve the quality of care they provide without significantly increasing costs. The five NIATx principles have potential for helping agencies achieve these goals.

References

  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. 1 ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute of Medicine. To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Institute of Medicine. Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use disorders: Quality chasm series. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McLellan AT, Carise D, Kleber HD. Can the national addiction treatment infrastructure support the public’s demand for quality care? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2003;25(2):117–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Capoccia VA, Cotter F, Gustafson DH et al. Making “stone soup”: Improvements in clinic access and retention in addiction treatment. Joint Commission Journal on Quality & Patient Safety 2007;33(2):95–103.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCarty D, Gustafson DH, Wisdom JP et al. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx): Enhancing access and retention. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 2007;88(2–3):138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoffman KA, Ford JH, Choi D et al. Replication and sustainability of improved access and retention within the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 2008;98(1–2):63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gustafson DH, Hundt AS. Findings of innovation research applied to quality management principles for health care. Health Care Management Review 1995;20(2):16–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ford JH, Green CA, Hoffman KA et al. Process improvement needs in substance abuse treatment: Admissions walk-through results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2007;33(4):379–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper R. Project NewProd: What Makes a New Product a Winner? An Empirical Study of Succesful Versus Unsuccesful Industrial Innovation. Montreal, Quebec: Quebec Industrial Innovation Centre; 1980.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Delbecq A, Mills P. Managerial Practices that Enhance Innovation. Organizational Dynamics 1985;14(1):24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerstenfled A. A study of successful projects, unsuccessful projects and projects in progress in West Germany. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM–23 1976;116–123.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maidique M, Zirger BJ. A study of success and failure in products innovation: The case of the US electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-31 1971;192–203.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCarty D, Gustafson D, Capoccia VA, et al. Improving care for the treatment of alcohol and drug disorders. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2009;36(1):52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oppenheimer E, Sheehan M, Taylor C. Letting the client speak: Drug misusers and the process of help seeking. British Journal of Addiction 1988;83(6):635–647.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Westermeyer J. Cross-cultural studies on alcoholism. Alcoholism: Biomedical and genetic aspects. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon; 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mirin SM, Weiss RD, Michael J et al. Psychopathology in substance abusers: Diagnosis and treatment. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse 1988;14(2):139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration CSAT. Screening and assessment for alcohol and other drug abuse among adults in the criminal justice system. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 7. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office; 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration CSAT. Comprehensive Case Management for Substance Abuse Treatment: Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 27. Rockville, MD; 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kotter JP. Leading change: Why transformational efforts fail. Harvard Business Review 1995;59–67.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hill S. How do you manage a flexible firm: The total quality model. Work, Employment and Society 1991;397–415.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kouzes J, Posner B. The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burns T, Stalker G. The management of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1961.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kotter JP, Schlesinger L. Best of HBR: Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review 2008;3–13.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deming WE. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT-CAES; 1986.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Juran JM. Jurans quality control handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaynak H. The relationship between the total quality management and practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 2003;21(4):405–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM et al. A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. JAMA 1996;275(11):841–846.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pearson ML, Wu S, Schaefer J et al. Assessing the implementation of the chronic care model in quality improvement collaboratives. Health Services Research 2005;40(4):978–996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gitlow H. Tools and methods for the improvement of quality. Homewood, IL: Irwin; 1989.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shewart W. Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. New York: Courier Dover Publications; 1986.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gustafson DH, Cats-Baril WL, Alemi F. Systems to support health policy analysis : Theory, models and uses. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fernandopulle R, Ferris T, Epstein A et al. A research agenda for bridging the ‘quality chasm.’ Health Affairs (Millwood) 2003;22(2):178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yin RK. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Services Research 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1209–1224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sluyter GV, Barnette JE. Application of total quality management to mental health: A benchmark case study. Journal of Mental Health Administration 1995;22(3):278–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Savas SA, Fleming WM, Bolig EE. Program specification: A precursor to program monitoring and quality improvement. A case study from Boysville of Michigan. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 1998;25(2):208–216.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McCoy HV, Messiah SE, Zhao W. Improving access to primary health care for chronic drug users: An innovative systemic intervention for providers. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2002;29(4):445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    User’s manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0 [computer program]. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development; 2004.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd ed. 2003. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Applied Social Research Methods SeriesGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
  44. 44.
    Weick KE. Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist 1984;39:40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim A. Hoffman
    • 1
  • Carla A. Green
    • 2
  • James H. Ford II
    • 3
  • Jennifer P. Wisdom
    • 4
  • David H. Gustafson
    • 3
  • Dennis McCarty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Preventive MedicineOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health ResearchKaiser Permanente NorthwestPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryNew York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations