Abstract:Background: Over the last century, the invitation to improve health-care service quality has taken many different forms: questions, observations, methods, tools and actions have emerged and evolved to create relevant 'improvement work.' In this paper we present three phases of this work. The basic frameworks used in these phases have not supplanted each other, but they have been layered one upon the next over time. Each brought important new thinking, new change opportunities and a new set of limits. The important messages of each need to be carried together into the future, as must the sense of curiosity and possibility about the commonalities that has driven this evolution. Methods: Literature, personal experience and other artifacts were reviewed to develop this description of how the focus on quality work has evolved (and continues to evolve) over the last century. Results: We describe three phases. Quality 1.0 seeks to answer the question 'How might we establish thresholds for good healthcare services?' It described certain 'basic' standards that should be used to certify acceptable performance and capability. This led to the formation of formal processes for review, documentation and external audits and a system for public notice and recognition. Over time, the limits and risks of this approach also became more visible: a 'micro-accounting compliance' sometimes triumphed over what might be of even greater strategic importance in the development and operations of effective systems of disease prevention and management to improve outcomes for patients and families. Quality 2.0 asked 'How might we use enterprise-wide systems for disease management?' It added a focus on the processes and systems of production, reduction of unwanted variation, the intrinsic motivation to take pride in work, outcome measurement and collaborative work practices as ways to improve quality, modeled on experiences in other industries. Quality 3.0 asks 'How might we improve the value of the contribution that healthcare service makes to health?' It requires careful consideration of the meaning of 'service' and 'value', service-creating logic, and prompts us to consider both relationships and activities in the context of the coproduction of health-care services. Conclusion: Efforts to improve the quality and value of health-care services have evolved over the last century. With each success have come new challenges and questions, requiring the addition of new frames and approaches.

Quality in general practice – state of affairs or dynamic process?

Quality improvement work in general practice; a Norwegian focus group study

Challenges to quality in contemporary, hybrid general practice: a multi-site longitudinal case study

Talking about quality: how ‘quality’ is conceptualized in nursing homes and homecare

Quality improvement into practice

Quality in health care. Medical or managerial?

From assurance to coproduction: a century of improving the quality of health-care service

Data quality improvement in general practice

Quality Improvement Methods in Clinical Medicine

Does quality improvement improve quality?

Quality improvement development in Swedish healthcare and welfare services

International practices of quality management in healthcare (a review)

Measuring against clinical standards

Total Quality Management in Healthcare: A Historical Perspective for a Modern Definition. -

TQM in dental practice

Improving the quality of NHS out-patient clinics: the applications and misapplications of TQM

Do primary care quality improvement frameworks consider equity?

[Quality management (TQM) in public health-care (PHC): principles for cost-performance calculations and cost reductions with better quality]

What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review

Quality improvement in primary care clinics

Theory and interpretation in qualitative studies from general practice: Why and how?