(PO-067) A New Tool for Continuous Quality Improvement: ReACS

Author: Geralyn D. Crain, D.D.S. – Assistant Dean, Faculty Development and Interprofessional Collaboration, Roseman University of Health Sciences College of Dental Medicine – South Jordan, Utah
Author: Catherine Cone, Pharm.D. – Assistant Dean for Assessment, Roseman University of Health Sciences College of Pharmacy
Submitter: Geralyn D. Crain, D.D.S. – Assistant Dean, Faculty Development and Interprofessional Collaboration, Roseman University of Health Science

Standard tools for continuous quality improvement (CQI) include SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) and SOAR (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, Results), which utilizes an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) approach that leverages positive attributes of an organization to fuel future change. Although both methods have strengths in certain circumstances, there are limitations to each. SWOT does not include specific results and emphasizes deficits (Weaknesses, Threats) which can cause negative feelings. SOAR includes results, elicits broader engagement, and with its origin in AI, focuses primarily on positive attributes of an organization (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspiration). However, exclusive focus on the positive may avoid addressing underlying causes of an organization's negative aspects, which may later resurface and hinder change. The purpose of this project was to create a new method for program improvement, implement and assess its use in a CQI initiative focused on faculty governance within one health professions college, and utilize results to make recommendations to enhance faculty governance within the college.

Methods: IRB determined the status as exempt. The new method termed ReACS includes: the review of data envisioning the ideal (aspiration) identifying what needs to change to achieve the ideal specifying what success would look like and how it could be measured Fourteen faculty members volunteered to participate in focus group meetings during which a facilitator guided the conversation using ReACS. Participants reviewed anonymous meeting transcripts and facilitator notes to ensure accuracy. A post-review survey soliciting qualitative feedback revealed all but one respondent viewed the sessions favorably. An analysis of themes from the transcripts and notes produced specific recommendations to enhance faculty governance in the college that were included in subsequent strategic planning documents.

Conclusion: A new method for CQI (ReACS) seems promising to promote organizational development and programmatic improvement and should be tested in other settings