Study Guide

Objective

The student is able to:
Define structure, service and outcome quality and meaning of quality assurance from the different perspectives
Identify and apply prevailing quality assessment methods and quality standards within social and health care
Describe the most central quality management systems within social- and health care
Integrate quality assurance and quality improvement to her/his professional duties
Plan and implement evaluation of ones work field/activity/operation

Content

Different perspective on on quality management, quality policy, quality system
Quality standards within social and health care organisation
Quality assurance, quality improvement and control as well as methods for constant quality improvement
Central quality management systems in Finland within social and health care

Location and time

2021

Materials

References:

Overall: All the assignment can be found on Moodle page instruction will be given in class during the first lecture
Books in Ebrary:

Bhat, K.S. 2010. Total Quality Management.

Bolman & Teal T.E 2008: Reframing organization, artistry and leadership.

Christensen, E.H. 2013. Certified Quality Process: an analyst handbook.

Guinane, C. & Davis, N. 2011. Improving quality in outpatient services.

Other:


https://www.valvira.fi/web/sv/-/en-effektiv-styrning-av-social-och-halsovarden-forutsatter-tydliga-roller-och-nationella-indikatorer

Buus, N. et al. 2013. Developing a Manual for Strengthening Mental Health Nurses' Clinical Supervision. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 34 (5), 344-9.

Campbell, S. M. (2002): Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Quality and Safety in Health Care 11 (4), 358–364.

Conti, T. 2002. A road map through the fog of quality and organizational assessments. Total Quality Management 13 (8).

Crofts, J. et al. 2014. Adaptation and implementation of local maternity dashboards in a Zimbabwean hospital to drive clinical improvement. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 92 (2), 146-52.

Donabedian, A. 2003. An Intoduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care.
Grol et al. 2013. Improving patient care. The implementation of change in health care.

Haines, ST. et al. 2010. Protected professional practice evaluation: A continuous quality-improvement process. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 67 (22), 1933-1940.
Hallock, A. B. (2019). A Case for Leadership Development in Nursing Practice. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 46(3), 325–328. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=137025803&site=ehost-live

Hughes, R. 2008. Patient safety and quality. An evidence-based handbook for nurses.
Kelly, P., Vottero, B.A., Christie-McAuliffe, C. 2014. Introduction to Quality and Safety Education for Nurses: Core Competencies.

Lillrank, P. et al. 2001. Continuous improvement: Exploring alternative organizational designs. Total Quality Management 12 (1), 41-55.
Mannix, J., Wilken, L., Daly, J. (2015). ‘Good ethics and moral standing': a qualitative study of aesthetic leadership in clinical nursing practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 24(11/12)pp 1603-1610

Pun, KF. & Hui, I.K. Integrating the safety dimension into quality management systems: a process model. Total Quality Management 13 (3), 373-391.

Selladurai, R. 2002. An organizational profitability, productivity, performance (PPP) model: going beyond TQM and BPR. Total Quality Management 13 (5), 613-619.

Sureshchandar, G. S. 2001. A Conceptual model for total quality management in service organizations. Total Quality Management 12 (3), 343-363.

World Health Organization 2002. A background for national quality policies in health systems. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/142066/E77983.pdf

Wisniewski, M. 2001. Assessing customer satisfaction with local authority services using SERVQUAL. Total Quality Management 12(7), 995-1002.

Zairi, M. 2002. Beyond TQM implementation: the new paradigm of TQM sustainability. Total Quality Management 13 (8).

Teaching methods

lectures and group discussion and seminar

Exam schedules

3 writen assignments and forum discussion

Student workload

1 sp= 27 hours

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment: The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments.
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

0-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student has not followed the instructions and their knowledge of the other students' work is missing. The student shows limited substantive knowledge, cannot be essential

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student has followed the instructions and their knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student has followed the instructions for the written work and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written work. The student has mastered the substance of his work, but the application is limited.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student has followed the instructions for the written work and shows that she has mastered the substance. They have read the other participants' written work and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar. The written work and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections and independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the written work and shows that she has mastered the substance. They have read the other participants' work and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar.

Qualifications

No prerequisites