HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) In Brief TRACK Discussion: Submit a Comment TRACK Discussion: View Comments Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when TRACK Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Solberg, L. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Solberg, L. I. Related Collections Health policy Quality improvement

How Can Primary Care Cross the Quality Chasm?

¹ Health Partners, Minneapolis, Minnesota
² University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
³ University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
⁴ Delaware Valley Outcomes Research, Newark, New Jersey
⁵ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
⁶ University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado
⁷ Olmsted Medical Center, Rochester, Minnesota
⁸ University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
⁹ Graham Center, Washington, DC

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Leif I. Solberg, MD, HealthPartners Research Foundation, PO Box 1524, MS#21111R, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1524, leif.i.solberg{at}healthpartners.com

ABSTRACT

The chasm between knowledge and practice decried by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) is the result of other chasms that have not been addressed. They include the chasm between what we know and what we need to know to improve care; the chasm between those who provide primary care and those who do not fund, study, support, or publish practical primary care studies; and the chasm between research and quality improvement (QI). These chasms are a result of problematic concepts, attitudes, traditions, time frames, and financing approaches among the various participants. If we are to facilitate the production and use of the knowledge needed for primary care to cross IOM’s chasm, major changes are needed. These changes include the following: (1) admission by all primary care professions that we have quality problems that require our unified attention and action; (2) conversion of the paradigm from "translate research into practice" to "optimizing health and health care through research and QI"; (3) development and facilitation of more partnerships among clinicians, researchers, and care delivery leaders for engaged scholarship in both research and QI; (4) modification of the agendas and methods of funders and researchers so they emphasize the problems of patients and patient care and support practical time frames and research designs; and (5) facilitation by funders and journals of the dissemination and implementation of lessons from QI and practical research.

Key Words: Diffusion of innovation • evidence-based medicine • primary health care • research support • total quality management

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. S. Gotler and K. C. Stange A Way Forward for Health Care and Healers Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2009; 7(3): 273 - 274. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. R. Phillips In This Issue: Practice, Research, and Reflection Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2009; 7(2): 98 - 99. [Full Text] [PDF]

TRACK Comments: