It includes determining what, when, where and who will possibly be part of the improvement. The information should be reviewed to identify the areas that need change. In this case, the patients’ data are helpful tools to identify areas for enhancing quality of patient care. Based on the reviews an outcome may be proposed at this point. The next step is called do. Here, the plans are put to the test. A part of the whole process may be used and reviewed. If there is any unexpected occurrence, it should be recorded and reported to the group. In the case of this project, it has been agreed that the collaboration between the EMS system and the hospital is important to render a more effective short-term and long-term patient care. Third part of the PDSA model is the study, wherein comprehensive reviews on the process are done to provide a more precise conclusion. At this point, the group may examine what was done and see the potential next step of improvement. In this project, the importance of the EMS system in the quality of treatment of asthma patients was discovered because of the team’s efforts in reviewing the data of the project. The fourth part of the PDSA model is called act. The results of the first three components are reviewed. There is a probability that the review will result to adjustments on the whole project. After this phase it is possible that there might be a few or more changes in the protocol of the hospital or the EMS agency which will make the quality of patient care to improve.
Murphy (2008) stated that PDSA is often considered to be an iterative process; that is, the cycle repeats as change or opportunities are identified. This is an advantage because new opportunities which may be neglected are identified and can be very useful for the improvements. The process also allows interventions to be focused on the concerns that arise from the reviews done. A disadvantage for this model is that it is a long process which may not be very helpful