Welcome to Leading Quality, the show that dives into the real-world stories and strategies of healthcare quality improvement leaders at all levels, from Frontline Champions to C-Suite Executives. Each episode uncovers how these dedicated professionals tackle complex topics in real healthcare environments. Discussion range from QI fundamentals, to leadership, technology, AI, and beyond. If you’re passionate about elevating patient care and want practical insights that go beyond the buzzwords, this podcast is for you. Tune in for inspirational conversations, innovative frameworks, and the behind-the-scenes details you won’t hear anywhere else, and discover how you, too, can lead quality improvement from wherever you stand in healthcare.
Site
RSS
Apple
Data updated on 25/09/2026
Recent rankings
Latest chart positions across Apple Podcasts and Spotify rankings.
Shared links between episodes and podcasts
Links found in episode descriptions and other podcasts that share them.
How Do You Build a Safety Culture That Survives Leadership Turnover?
Season 2 · Episode 3
Thursday, September 24, 2026 • Duration 01:06:33
Why This Episode Matters
High reliability is often treated as a collection of visible practices: safety huddles, rounding, event review, reporting systems. But Nicholas Testa argues that the practices matter only if they create an organization that can reliably surface risk, learn, and respond. The harder leadership problem is durability: can those behaviors continue when the CMO changes, the CEO turns over, or the original champion leaves? This conversation examines the organizational scaffolding that makes safety less dependent on personality. It also surfaces a critical tension: psychological safety cannot mean the absence of accountability. Leaders need people to report mistakes, near misses, and uncertainty without fear, while still creating clear expectations that problems will be examined and acted upon. The goal is not simply a safer culture, but a system capable of seeing and correcting its own weaknesses.
Key Ideas Explored
Psychological safety and accountability have to rise together. Testa describes high accountability without psychological safety as an environment of anxiety, while psychological safety without accountability can drift toward apathy. The leadership task is to make it safe to expose problems without lowering expectations for responding to them.
People learn whether it is safe to speak up by watching what leaders repeatedly do with bad news. Testa recalls a CEO whose consistent response to serious problems was essentially: thank you for telling me; now what are we going to do about it? Predictability matters because culture is built from repeated responses, not declarations about openness.
Improving safety reporting can initially make an organization look less safe. When Testa pushed hospitals to conduct regular event reviews and encourage reporting, his region began accounting for a disproportionate share of reported events. That increase was not necessarily deterioration; it exposed previously hidden problems and created the information needed to learn, track patterns, and eventually reduce harm.
Near misses may contain more learning than the harm events leaders naturally prioritize. Serious events demand attention, but precursor events can show where defenses nearly failed before a patient was harmed. Testa’s work on lost and mislabeled specimens illustrates how something routinely categorized as a near miss can reveal substantial patient burden and recurring system weakness once leaders examine it closely.
High reliability requires an operating structure, not a collection of rituals. Testa’s core scaffolding includes visible senior leadership commitment, structured rounding, a daily safety huddle, and multidisciplinary event review. A huddle is not “high reliability” merely because it exists; it earns that value only when information moves through it, problems are acted upon, and feedback loops close.
Metrics can become dangerous when protecting the metric replaces seeing reality. Testa describes a hospital nearing 350 days without a harm event that resisted classifying a medication error as serious because doing so would reset the count. The episode exposes a recurring safety problem: once an organization becomes attached to the appearance of success, accurate classification can begin to feel like failure.
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
When reporting suddenly increases after a safety initiative, ask whether performance worsened or whether the organization has finally become better at seeing what was already happening.
Examine your own response to bad news. Would staff who watched you handle the last serious event predict curiosity and action? Or would they expect anger, blame, defensiveness, or surprise?
Test the durability of your safety system by imagining the current senior leaders disappearing tomorrow. Which practices would continue because they are embedded in operations, and which survive only because a particular person keeps pushing them?
Look beyond the events that reached the patient. Ask whether your review processes have enough bandwidth to identify recurring near misses and precursor events before they become the next serious harm.
Audit cherished performance streaks and “days since” metrics for unintended consequences. If acknowledging an event feels organizationally costly, the measure itself may be creating pressure not to see the system clearly.
High reliability organizations (HROs) — the broader framework Testa uses to distinguish dependable outcomes from merely adopting safety practices.
Amy Edmondson’s work on psychological safety and accountability — referenced in framing the relationship between safety, anxiety, apathy, and high performance.
Deming — referenced in discussing the importance of defining what good healthcare outcomes actually mean before attempting to improve them.
Safety huddles, leadership rounding, and safety event roundtables — the core operational scaffolding Testa describes for making high reliability durable.
Good catch programs — a mechanism for recognizing and reinforcing the identification of near misses before they reach patients.
Leading Quality is a podcast for healthcare leaders committed to improving systems, culture, and outcomes.
If you found this episode valuable, follow the show, rate and review the podcast, or share it with a colleague working to improve care.
Lessons From Year One: Leading a Healthcare Learning System
Season 2 · Episode 2
Thursday, September 10, 2026 • Duration 36:05
Why This Episode Matters
Healthcare organizations cannot learn simply because they have dashboards, safety reports, improvement methods, or formal escalation processes. Learning depends on whether people can surface what leaders do not know, challenge assumptions, admit uncertainty, and act on problems without making truth-telling personally dangerous. This second year-in-review episode examines the human conditions that make a learning system work: leadership humility, trust, psychological safety, accountability, high expectations, and agency. The central tension is that these ideas are often treated as opposites. Leaders are expected to be confident, yet must remain open to being wrong; organizations need psychological safety, yet cannot abandon accountability; and improvement should support people without lowering the standard of care. The challenge is to build systems that are demanding about the work while remaining curious about why reality falls short.
Key Ideas Explored
Leadership increasingly means leading knowledge you do not personally possess. As problems become more complex, the leader’s advantage cannot be knowing more than everyone else. The work shifts from providing answers toward connecting expertise, asking better questions, and creating conditions in which the organization can use what its people collectively know.
An open door is not an information system. Leaders inevitably operate with an incomplete picture of their organizations, and simply inviting people to raise concerns places too much responsibility on those with less authority. Rounding, specific questions, escalation mechanisms, safety huddles, and deference to expertise can reduce the personal courage required to make important information visible.
The goal is to lead a less imaginary organization. Every leader carries a mental model of how the organization works, but certainty can cause contradictory information to be filtered out until the picture reaching leadership becomes cleaner and less true. A learning posture treats unexpected observations as evidence that the model may need revision rather than as resistance to be overcome.
Psychological safety and high expectations are not competing choices. Taking a stand on zero harm can express what an organization believes patients deserve without pretending that perfect performance will be achieved immediately. The gap between aspiration and reality should become a source of disciplined learning rather than an automatic trigger for blame.
Lessons From Year One: Building a Healthcare Learning System
Season 2 · Episode 1
Thursday, August 27, 2026 • Duration 45:57
Why This Episode Matters
Healthcare organizations can run hundreds of improvement projects without becoming fundamentally better at improvement. After 26 conversations in the first year of Leading Quality, a larger question emerged: what makes an organization capable of learning repeatedly, across problems, teams, and time? This episode examines the difference between having people who know improvement methods and having a system that can recognize problems, understand the work producing them, test its assumptions against reality, and carry what it learns forward. The challenge is not to move beyond projects because projects do not matter. It is to ensure that successful projects leave behind more than better results; they increase the organization’s capacity to solve the next problem.
Key Ideas Explored
A successful improvement project is not the same as organizational learning. The deeper test is what happens after the project ends: whether new knowledge becomes part of standard work, travels elsewhere, survives the departure of its champions, and leaves the organization more capable of solving future problems.
The people with the greatest authority often have the least direct visibility into the work. As information moves upward, frontline experience becomes metrics, categories, and dashboards. Leaders therefore need mechanisms that connect the knowledge held by people doing the work with the authority required to change the systems around them.
Seeing a bad outcome is not the same as understanding the system that produced it. Safety events can be recognized and investigated while still being fundamentally misinterpreted. Direct observation, frontline knowledge, human factors, and measurement reveal different parts of reality; none is an adequate substitute for the others.
Standards can be treated as hypotheses rather than permanently correct rules. A standard represents our current prediction about how a process should behave. When reality differs from that prediction, the discrepancy can become an opportunity to investigate what we misunderstood rather than simply evidence that someone failed to comply.
Quality cannot remain in the organizational “sidecar.” Quality, safety, patient experience, and operations are produced by the same underlying work. Improvement expertise remains essential, but responsibility for producing quality ultimately has to be integrated with the people who operate the system.
Designing High-Velocity Organizations in Healthcare with Dr. Steve Spear
Season 1 · Episode 26
Thursday, August 13, 2026 • Duration 01:18:21
Why This Episode Matters
Healthcare organizations often tolerate ambiguity, workarounds, and recurring operational problems until they produce serious harm. Dr. Steve Spear explains how leaders can apply the same disciplined thinking used in clinical diagnosis to the systems in which care is delivered—making problems visible early, investigating them rigorously, and building problem-solving capability throughout the organization.
Key Ideas Explored
High-performing organizations compete through distributed problem-solving capability.
Standards work best as testable hypotheses, not rigid commands.
Ambiguity and workarounds allow small problems to become serious failures.
Amplification, slowification, and simplification create the conditions for learning.
Leadership means developing others’ ability to see, solve, and share problems.
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Go directly to the point of work and observe where staff experience friction or suffering.
Create clear expectations that make deviations and emerging problems visible.
Respond to reported problems with curiosity, presence, and practical support.
Pause when work departs from expectations rather than pushing teams to work around it.
Build capability in frontline leaders so improvement spreads without depending on a large central quality team.
Healthcare Needs a GPS for Life Outside the Hospital with Dr. Joshua Liu
Season 1 · Episode 25
Thursday, July 30, 2026 • Duration 51:33
Why This Episode Matters
Patients spend most of their lives outside the hospital, yet healthcare teams often have limited visibility into what happens after discharge, between visits, or during long-term recovery. In this episode, Dr. Joshua Liu discusses how SeamlessMD was built to close that gap by helping patients navigate clinical journeys, giving care teams better insight into patient progress, and showing why successful health technology depends as much on workflow, incentives, and leadership alignment as it does on the product itself.
Key Ideas Explored
The “black hole” after discharge and why patients need more support outside the hospital
SeamlessMD as a healthcare GPS for surgery, chronic disease, cancer care, pregnancy, and recovery
Why surgical pathways were easier to scale than complex chronic disease management
How workflow fit determines whether health technology helps or burdens care teams
Why strong outcome data may still fail to drive adoption without strategic and financial alignment
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Look beyond the hospital walls when designing quality and safety interventions.
Do not assume better data or better outcomes will automatically create executive buy-in.
Evaluate technology by how well it fits real clinical workflows, not just by its features.
Engage both frontline teams and senior leaders early if pilots are expected to scale.
Use patient questions and after-hours concerns as signals for improving education, navigation, and care design.
Why Healthcare Improvement Gets Stuck in the Sidecar with Ken Segel
Season 1 · Episode 24
Thursday, July 16, 2026 • Duration 01:06:10
Why This Episode Matters
Healthcare has made real gains in quality and safety, but Ken Segel argues that too much improvement work still lives as projects, dashboards, or specialist-led initiatives rather than as part of how organizations are run every day. This episode examines what it takes to move from episodic improvement to habitual excellence: a clinical operating system where safety, flow, problem solving, leadership, and accountability are built into daily work.
Key Ideas Explored
The Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative and the early proof that zero harm could be pursued across competing hospitals
Why safety, quality, patient experience, access, and cost are all connected through the flow of care
The clinical operating system: the work system, the problem-solving system, and the leadership system
Why quality and safety experts should advise operating leaders rather than own the work from the sidecar
The shift from rear-view mirror problem solving to real-time learning while information is still fresh
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Look at whether improvement work is central to operations or still peripheral to how care is actually managed.
Treat quality and safety as operating responsibilities, not just specialist functions or compliance activities.
Go to where the work happens and observe how care flows, how problems surface, and how leaders respond.
Build problem solving into daily management rather than relying only on retrospective reviews and dashboards.
Use discipline to free clinical expertise, not constrain it.
Putting Safety Into the Genome of Healthcare with Dr. Peter Lachman
Season 1 · Episode 23
Thursday, July 2, 2026 • Duration 01:20:37
Why This Episode Matters
Patient safety has often been built around what happens after harm occurs: incident reports, investigations, accountability, and corrective action. In this episode, Dr. Peter Lachman argues for a more proactive and moral view of safety: one where teams talk about risk every day, anticipate who may be harmed next, and make safety part of the “genome” of healthcare education, leadership, governance, and frontline work.
Key Ideas Explored
The early safety event that became Dr. Lachman’s “big why” for patient safety work.
Why professionalism and good intentions are not enough to make care safe.
The shift from retrospective harm review to proactive risk prediction.
The SAFE program as a practical way to help frontline teams talk about safety every day.
Why safety and quality need to become social movements, not just programs or products.
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Treat adverse events as signals of system design, not simply individual failure.
Build daily routines that help teams ask who is at risk before harm occurs.
Make safety part of training, clinical reasoning, and leadership language from the start.
Pay attention to culture: what people talk about, what they notice, and what they are willing to learn from.
In low-resource settings, do not underestimate the power of people, relationships, and practical methods.
Why Healthcare Leaders Only See the Tip of the Iceberg with Maria Mentzer
Season 1 · Episode 22
Thursday, June 18, 2026 • Duration 58:57
Why This Episode Matters
Healthcare organizations often know they have problems with flow, safety, delays, frustration, and waste, but they may not actually see the work clearly enough to solve them. In this conversation, Maria Mentzer explains how See to Solve helps organizations surface hidden problems, involve the people closest to the work, and build practical problem-solving capability through simple, repeatable behaviors rather than heavy improvement infrastructure or abstract training.
Key Ideas Explored
Why leaders often see only the tip of the iceberg of organizational problems
How See to Solve helps teams make work visible before jumping to solutions
The role of process and relationship mapping in creating shared understanding
Why leadership support is essential for sustaining improvement behavior
How small, rapid experiments help teams generate learning instead of just implementing fixes
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Start with a narrow slice of real work rather than trying to solve the whole system at once.
Involve the people who actually do the work; they see barriers leaders often cannot.
Treat mapping as a way to create insight, connection, and energy for change.
Make leadership participation visible, practical, and sustained beyond the first workshop.
Build internal coaching capacity so improvement becomes part of daily work, not a consultant-dependent event.
The Architecture of Belief: Amar Shah on Improvement at NHS Scale
Season 1 · Episode 21
Thursday, June 4, 2026 • Duration 01:01:37
Why This Episode Matters
Healthcare organizations often treat improvement as a set of projects, tools, or training programs. Amar Shah’s work at East London NHS Foundation Trust (ELFT) and NHS England points to something larger: the long-term work of building belief, capability, infrastructure, and leadership routines so improvement becomes part of how a health system thinks and operates. This conversation explores what it takes to move from local improvement activity to organization-wide and national-scale improvement strategy.
Key Ideas Explored
Building belief as a core design challenge in improvement
Moving from centralized QI support to distributed improvement capability
Why storytelling is essential improvement infrastructure
Co-design as both an ethical commitment and a driver of better results
Scaling improvement from ELFT to NHS England’s national improvement work
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Treat belief in improvement as something you must deliberately build, not something you can mandate.
Invest in stories that make improvement visible, credible, and emotionally meaningful.
Build distributed coaching capability so improvement support lives closer to the work.
Help boards learn improvement through better questions, better data, and better routines.
Use co-design early and seriously, especially when tackling complex system problems.
From Needle-in-a-Haystack to 95%: AI, Goals of Care, and Systemwide Change
Season 1 · Episode 20
Thursday, May 21, 2026 • Duration 01:01:15
Why This Episode Matters
Goals-of-care conversations can profoundly shape serious illness care, but in many health systems they remain difficult to find, inconsistently documented, and hard to measure. In this episode, Matthew Gonzales and Deborah Unger describe how Providence treated serious illness communication as a systemwide quality problem, combining leadership commitment, clinician training, nursing engagement, informatics, and AI to make “what matters” conversations more visible and actionable across 51 hospitals.
Key Ideas Explored
Why goals-of-care documentation became a “conversation in the haystack” problem
How Providence made serious illness communication a system priority, not a palliative care side project
Why training physicians alone did not move the needle, and how nurses became critical to implementation
The tension between standardized documentation and preserving the humanity of the conversation
How AI helped identify meaningful goals-of-care conversations without relying on checkboxes or dot phrases
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Treat important clinical conversations as part of system design, not just individual clinician skill.
Build measurement only after defining what meaningful quality looks like in practice.
Engage the disciplines closest to the workflow; nursing involvement may reveal implementation paths leaders miss.
Avoid designing metrics that reward documentation behavior while missing the underlying clinical purpose.
Look for AI use cases where language, workflow burden, and quality measurement intersect.
Accountability and systems thinking require separate questions. Asking what the system needs to learn is different from asking what accountability is appropriate. Mature organizations must distinguish human error, risky behavior, and system failure rather than defaulting either to punishment or to the idea that individual choices never matter.
Improvement can create agency rather than additional burden. Repeated workarounds and poorly designed processes can produce helplessness. Improvement becomes a “science of hope” when people have a method for understanding problems, testing changes, redesigning their work, and removing unnecessary friction—including through subtraction rather than continually adding new requirements.
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Ask what information currently requires unusual courage to reach you. If a serious problem depends on one brave individual speaking up, the organization may have a weak information system rather than a strong safety culture.
When a room goes silent after “Any questions?”, do not interpret silence as agreement. Reconsider the design: ask what you may be missing, where the plan could fail, and what people closest to the work are seeing that leadership cannot.
Examine how your organization responds to performance data. The same number can open a conversation about what is happening in the system or signal that judgment has already been made.
When performance falls short, separate aspiration from response. Maintain a demanding standard while asking what the miss can teach you before deciding what accountability is warranted.
Before adding another checklist, alert, meeting, field, or training requirement, ask what could be removed. Improvement should not automatically mean asking already burdened clinicians to absorb more work.
Learning requires infrastructure, not heroics. Training people in improvement is insufficient if they return to environments without meaningful problems to work on, protected time, coaching, data, governance, or mechanisms for spreading what they discover. Capability becomes organizational only when the system knows how to use it.
Takeaways for Quality Leaders
Ask what happens to knowledge after a successful improvement project. Does it alter how work is done and make the next improvement easier, or does it remain primarily with the team that generated it?
When an important metric changes, resist moving immediately from the number to a solution. Ask what the measurement reveals, what you would need to observe directly to understand the work producing it, and what the people doing that work know that the metric cannot tell you.
Before acting under uncertainty, make the prediction explicit: What do we expect to happen, and why? Then compare that expectation with reality and investigate meaningful discrepancies, including results that are better than expected.
Examine your organization’s theory for how improvement actually happens. If someone identifies a recurring problem tomorrow, where does it go, who responds, who can act, how can frontline knowledge shape the investigation, and how does anything learned travel?
Consider whether your improvement capability exists mostly in individuals or in the organization itself. The critical question is not simply how many people have been trained, but whether their knowledge has somewhere to go.
Disclosure: This episode is not sponsored. Jason has no financial or commercial relationship with See to Solve. The conversation reflects his editorial interest in the work and in Steven Spear’s contributions to improvement science.
Leading Quality is a podcast for healthcare leaders committed to improving systems, culture, and outcomes.
If you found this episode valuable, follow the show, rate and review the podcast, or share it with a colleague working to improve care.
Discover shows related to Leading Quality, based on actual content similarities. Explore podcasts with similar topics, themes, and formats, backed by real data.
