Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
45,366
result(s) for
"Quality of Health Care - standards"
Sort by:
When the patient is the expert: measuring patient experience and satisfaction with care
In 2018, three independent reports were published, emphasizing the need for attention to, and improvements in, quality of care to achieve effective universal health coverage. A key aspect of high quality health care and health systems is that they are person-centred, a characteristic that is at the same time intrinsically important (all individuals have the right to be treated with dignity and respect) and instrumentally important (person-centred care is associated with improved health-care utilization and health outcomes). Following calls to make 2019 a year of action, we provide guidance to policy-makers, researchers and implementers on how they can take on the task of measuring person-centred care. Theoretically, measures of person-centred care allow quality improvement efforts to be evaluated and ensure that health systems are accountable to those they aim to serve. However, in practice, the utility of these measures is limited by lack of clarity and precision in designing and by using measures for different aspects of person-centeredness. We discuss the distinction between two broad categories of measures of patient-centred care: patient experience and patient satisfaction. We frame our discussion of these measures around three key questions: (i) how will the results of this measure be used?; (ii) how will patient subjectivity be accounted for?; and (iii) is this measure validated or tested? By addressing these issues during the design phase, researchers will increase the usability of their measures.
Journal Article
Transforming health care : Virginia Mason Medical Center's pursuit of the perfect patient experience
\"A chronicle of one of the most unusual series of events in the history of medicine, this book tells the story a group of men and women clinicians, administrators, frontline workers, trustees, and leaders blessed with vision, courage, and a relentless determination to improve. It is the story of a medical center transformed. Ultimately, it is the story of a new and possibly better way to take on the challenge we face in the United States today to provide superb medical care to our people while at the same time controlling costs\"--Provided by publisher.
Book
Textbook Outcome: an Ordered Composite Measure for Quality of Bariatric Surgery
IntroductionTextbook outcome (TO) studies have previously shown that a composite measure can provide additional information on the overall quality of surgical care. However, these were binominal outcomes which do not give individual hospitals the required information on how to improve their performance. The aim of this study is to create an ordered TO consisting of multiple outcome parameters for bariatric surgery to assess the extent of hospital variation.MethodsPatients who underwent a primary bariatric procedure in the Netherlands were included for analyses. The outcomes were ordered as mortality, severe postoperative complications, readmission, mild complications and prolonged length of stay (LOS) within 30 days after primary surgery with TO defined as none of these outcomes occurring. Hospitals were identified with a significantly higher or lower observed/expected ratio than expected based on case-mix and the extent of hospital variation was expressed as the median and interquartile range (IQR).ResultsFrom a total of 27,360 patients on average, 88.7% reached TO (range 35.5–96.9%). Two hospitals had less than expected TO due to more prolonged LOS (57.6%) in one hospital and more mild complications in another (17.1%). Hospital variation was much smaller for TO (median OR 0.91 IQR [0.62–1.06]) than for an ordered TO (median POR 0.66 IQR [0.55–0.96]).ConclusionUsing the ordered TO for bariatric surgery, more hospital variation was captured thereby enabling individual hospitals to identify which outcomes and specific groups need improvement. This could attribute to the ongoing effort to improve the quality of the outcome of bariatric surgery.
Journal Article
Understanding and measuring quality of care: dealing with complexity
Existing definitions and measurement approaches of quality of health care often fail to address the complexities involved in understanding quality of care. It is perceptions of quality, rather than clinical indicators of quality, that drive service utilization and are essential to increasing demand. Here we reflect on the nature of quality, how perceptions of quality influence health systems and what such perceptions indicate about measurement of quality within health systems. We discuss six specific challenges related to the conceptualization and measurement of the quality of care: perceived quality as a driver of service utilization; quality as a concept shaped over time through experience; responsiveness as a key attribute of quality; the role of management and other so-called upstream factors; quality as a social construct co-produced by families, individuals, networks and providers; and the implications of our observations for measurement. Within the communities and societies where care is provided, quality of care cannot be understood outside social norms, relationships, trust and values. We need to improve not only technical quality but also acceptability, responsiveness and levels of patient-provider trust. Measurement approaches need to be reconsidered. An improved understanding of all the attributes of quality in health systems and their interrelationships could support the expansion of access to essential health interventions.
Journal Article
The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement
BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) efforts have become widespread in healthcare, however there is significant variability in their success. Differences in context are thought to be responsible for some of the variability seen.ObjectiveTo develop a conceptual model that can be used by organisations and QI researchers to understand and optimise contextual factors affecting the success of a QI project.Methods10 QI experts were provided with the results of a systematic literature review and then participated in two rounds of opinion gathering to identify and define important contextual factors. The experts subsequently met in person to identify relationships among factors and to begin to build the model.ResultsThe Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ) is organised based on the level of the healthcare system and identifies 25 contextual factors likely to influence QI success. Contextual factors within microsystems and those related to the QI team are hypothesised to directly shape QI success, whereas factors within the organisation and external environment are believed to influence success indirectly.ConclusionsThe MUSIQ framework has the potential to guide the application of QI methods in healthcare and focus research. The specificity of MUSIQ and the explicit delineation of relationships among factors allows a deeper understanding of the mechanism of action by which context influences QI success. MUSIQ also provides a foundation to support further studies to test and refine the theory and advance the field of QI science.
Journal Article
The problem with composite indicators
‘The Problem with…’ series covers controversial topics related to efforts to improve healthcare quality, including widely recommended but deceptively difficult strategies for improvement and pervasive problems that seem to resist solution.
Journal Article
Comparing VA and Non-VA Quality of Care: A Systematic Review
BackgroundThe Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system aims to provide high-quality medical care to veterans in the USA, but the quality of VA care has recently drawn the concern of Congress. The objective of this study was to systematically review published evidence examining the quality of care provided at VA health care facilities compared to quality of care in other facilities and systems.MethodsBuilding on the search strategy and results of a prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2015) to identify relevant articles on the quality of care at VA facilities compared to non-VA facilities. Articles from the prior systematic review published from 2005 and onward were also included and re-abstracted. Studies were classified, analyzed, and summarized by the Institute of Medicine’s quality dimensions.ResultsSixty-nine articles were identified (including 31 articles from the prior systematic review and 38 new articles) that address one or more Institute of Medicine quality dimensions: safety (34 articles), effectiveness (24 articles), efficiency (9 articles), patient-centeredness (5 articles), equity (4 articles), and timeliness (1 article). Studies of safety and effectiveness indicated generally better or equal performance, with some exceptions. Too few articles related to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness were found from which to reliably draw conclusions about VA care related to these dimensions.DiscussionThe VA often (but not always) performs better than or similarly to other systems of care with regard to the safety and effectiveness of care. Additional studies of quality of care in the VA are needed on all aspects of quality, but particularly with regard to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness.
Journal Article
Validity of the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Hospital-acquired Conditions
BACKGROUND:The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital-acquired Conditions (HACs) are increasingly being used for pay-for-performance and public reporting despite concerns over their validity. Given the potential for these measures to misinform patients, misclassify hospitals, and misapply financial and reputational harm to hospitals, these need to be rigorously evaluated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess PSI and HAC measure validity.
METHODS:We searched MEDLINE and the gray literature from January 1, 1990 through January 14, 2015 for studies that addressed the validity of the HAC measures and PSIs. Secondary outcomes included the effects of present on admission (POA) modifiers, and the most common reasons for discrepancies. We developed pooled results for measures evaluated by ≥3 studies. We propose a threshold of 80% for positive predictive value or sensitivity for pay-for-performance and public reporting suitability.
RESULTS:Only 5 measures, Iatrogenic Pneumothorax (PSI 6/HAC 17), Central Line–associated Bloodstream Infections (PSI 7), Postoperative hemorrhage/hematoma (PSI 9), Postoperative deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolus (PSI 12), and Accidental Puncture/Laceration (PSI 15), had sufficient data for pooled meta-analysis. Only PSI 15 (Accidental Puncture and Laceration) met our proposed threshold for validity (positive predictive value only) but this result was weakened by considerable heterogeneity. Coding errors were the most common reasons for discrepancies between medical record review and administrative databases. POA modifiers may improve the validity of some measures.
CONCLUSION:This systematic review finds that there is limited validity for the PSI and HAC measures when measured against the reference standard of a medical chart review. Their use, as they currently exist, for public reporting and pay-for-performance, should be publicly reevaluated in light of these findings.
Journal Article