From “Don't Ask, Just Trust” to “Trust Those Who are Accountable”

2017 ◽  
pp. 924-938
Author(s):  
Vahé A. Kazandjian
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Performance Measures ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Measurement Tools ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Key Dimensions ◽  
Local Traditions

The past three decades have primarily focused on improving performance across health care providing organizations and even individual professionals. While their interest in performance improvement is global, the strategies across health care systems remain variable and the resulting methods of accountability to select audiences continue to be influenced by tradition and expectation. The purpose of this article is to review the key dimensions of the operationalization of performance measurement and the translation of its findings to statements about quality of care. While significant literature exists on the conceptual debates about the nature of quality, the deciding factor in demonstrating that better quality may have been achieved resides in the acceptability of the measurement tools to translate performance measures into profiles of quality. Fundamentally, the use of the tools is seen as only one component of a successful strategy – the education of various audiences as to what the measures mean not only is a necessary requisite for sound project design but also will determine how the accountability model is shaped in each environment based on the generic measurement tools results, local traditions of care and caring, and expectations about outcomes.

From “Don't Ask, Just Trust” to “Trust Those Who are Accountable”

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-73
Author(s):  
Vahé A. Kazandjian
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Performance Improvement ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Project Design ◽  
The Past ◽  
Measurement Tools ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Key Dimensions ◽  
Local Traditions

The past three decades have primarily focused on improving performance across health care providing organizations and even individual professionals. While their interest in performance improvement is global, the strategies across health care systems remain variable and the resulting methods of accountability to select audiences continue to be influenced by tradition and expectation. The purpose of this article is to review the key dimensions of the operationalization of performance measurement and the translation of its findings to statements about quality of care. While significant literature exists on the conceptual debates about the nature of quality, the deciding factor in demonstrating that better quality may have been achieved resides in the acceptability of the measurement tools to translate performance measures into profiles of quality. Fundamentally, the use of the tools is seen as only one component of a successful strategy – the education of various audiences as to what the measures mean not only is a necessary requisite for sound project design but also will determine how the accountability model is shaped in each environment based on the generic measurement tools results, local traditions of care and caring, and expectations about outcomes.

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary Reference Centers: The Care of Neuroendocrine Tumors

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. e11-e16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simron Singh ◽  
Calvin Law
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumor ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Reference Center ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Provider Experience ◽  
Positive Effect

As providers at a neuroendocrine tumor multidisciplinary reference center, the authors believe these centers have a positive effect on patient and provider experience, and the creation of specialty centers with a focus on improving outcomes and quality of care should be a goal of health care systems.

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Care Performance

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 figure, 3 tables, and 56 references Keywords: Quality of care, performance measure, quality improvement, clinical practice, sigma six, transparency

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Technological Advancement

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This chapter contains 56 references.

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Technological Advancement

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This chapter contains 56 references.

Implementing Distress Screening in a Community and Veteran’s Administration Oncology Clinic

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Montgomery ◽  
Nicole Thurston ◽  
Michelle Betts ◽  
C. Scott Smith
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Department Of Veterans Affairs ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Community Clinic ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Community Oncology ◽  
Care Systems

The complexities of cancer treatment present a myriad of life-altering impacts for patients. These impacts can be addressed only if health care systems have been designed to detect and address all of these challenges. One significant, but often hidden, challenge is distress. This reaction to the myriad obstacles that cancer presents can impact the quality of life, and influence outcomes, of patients with cancer. Health systems have been slow to address these problems, and a prime example is the implementation of a distress screening and management system. This case study summarizes distress screening in a community oncology clinic compared to a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) oncology clinic. The community clinic responded to accreditation and grant-driven initiatives, whereas the VA responded to mental health and integrated primary care initiatives. This case study explores the history and the ongoing challenges of distress screening in these community-based health care systems.

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Technological Advancement

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement.  This review contains 1 highly rendered figure, 3 tables, and 56 references.

Using Cannabis Therapeutically in the UK: A Qualitative Analysis

2003 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Coomber ◽  
Michael Oliver ◽  
Craig Morris
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Therapeutic Agent ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Access Cost ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
The Uk

Thirty-three therapeutic cannabis users in England were interviewed about their experiences using an illegal drug for therapeutic purposes. Interviews were semi-structured, and responses highly qualitative. Particular issues included how and why cannabis was used therapeutically; what problems its illegality posed in terms of access, cost, reliability of supply, and quality of the product; the perceived beneficial effects of its use; and unwanted effects (problems in relation to family, friends, partners, the criminal justice system, and the health care system). The study did not seek to prove or disprove the efficacy of cannabis used as a therapeutic agent merely to report the experiences of those who use it in that way. It was found that users perceived cannabis to be highly effective in treating their symptoms, to complement existing medication, and to produce fewer unwanted effects. Smoking was the preferred method of administration, permitting greater control over dose and administration. Problems related to prescribed medication motivated many to use cannabis therapeutically. Few problems were experienced with friends, family, partners, and the criminal justice or health care systems, although other concerns about cannabis's illegality were reported. Although most were relatively unconcerned about the risk involved and were determined to continue use, many resented that they felt they were being forced to break the law. Problems relating to access to the drug (in an illegal context) and managing its administration were reported. A brief discussion of the continued prohibition of cannabis for this group is undertaken, and a harm reduction approach is suggested.

scholarly journals Events, Public Discourses and Responsive Government: Quality Assurance in Health Care in England, Sweden and Japan

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
NAONORI KODATE
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Dynamic Interactions ◽  
Policy Domain ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Care Systems

AbstractOne would expect the common agenda of improving the quality of care in hospital sectors across nations to bring about a convergence of their quality assurance systems. However, one finds great variations in the ways in which such schemes are constructed and communicated to the general public in different countries. This paper examines three universal health care systems (England, Sweden and Japan) and explores the degree to which political institutions and public opinions affect the processes of quality assurance system building within them. It argues that the inputs from governments in response to public concerns are the key to understanding the changes in this seemingly profession-dominated policy domain; therefore policy changes are significantly affected by dynamic interactions between events, public discourses and governance structures within these countries. The findings also demonstrate that public access to information has begun to have a large impact on policy debates in all three countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document