Healthcare quality improvement: It's time to update the Donabedian approach with a complex systems perspective

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Una Geary
{"title":"Healthcare quality improvement: It's time to update the Donabedian approach with a complex systems perspective","authors":"Una Geary","doi":"10.1002/hpm.3830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is broad consensus that healthcare systems are complex systems, which as a result, face complex problems. From this perspective, quality of care can be conceptualised as an emergent outcome of the healthcare system, that is more than the sum of individual components of care (in terms of inputs and processes), and quality improvement as a complex systems problem. However, traditional approaches, such as Donabedian's structure/process/outcome framework, are rooted in a linear, reductionist perspective, that fails to recognise that quality of care is created in the context of complex healthcare systems, and the many interactions and uncertainties at play that shape quality of care and health outcomes. A paradigm shift is needed from a reductionist to a systems thinking approach if we are to better understand and improve quality of care. Such a shift begins with asking different research questions, situated within the system context, that focus on identifying how interventions may contribute to system improvement, as opposed to seeking to directly link interventions with quality of care outcomes. In contrast to traditional healthcare quality measures focusing on single components of the system in isolation, research needs to explicitly consider quality of care as an emergent system outcome and identify new indicators and methods of assessment that provide insight into how the healthcare system functions as an interconnected whole. It is an opportune moment to harness the energy of the international healthcare quality movement to drive the innovation needed in research and practice to adopt a systems thinking approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hpm.3830","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is broad consensus that healthcare systems are complex systems, which as a result, face complex problems. From this perspective, quality of care can be conceptualised as an emergent outcome of the healthcare system, that is more than the sum of individual components of care (in terms of inputs and processes), and quality improvement as a complex systems problem. However, traditional approaches, such as Donabedian's structure/process/outcome framework, are rooted in a linear, reductionist perspective, that fails to recognise that quality of care is created in the context of complex healthcare systems, and the many interactions and uncertainties at play that shape quality of care and health outcomes. A paradigm shift is needed from a reductionist to a systems thinking approach if we are to better understand and improve quality of care. Such a shift begins with asking different research questions, situated within the system context, that focus on identifying how interventions may contribute to system improvement, as opposed to seeking to directly link interventions with quality of care outcomes. In contrast to traditional healthcare quality measures focusing on single components of the system in isolation, research needs to explicitly consider quality of care as an emergent system outcome and identify new indicators and methods of assessment that provide insight into how the healthcare system functions as an interconnected whole. It is an opportune moment to harness the energy of the international healthcare quality movement to drive the innovation needed in research and practice to adopt a systems thinking approach.

提高医疗质量:是时候从复杂系统的角度更新多纳比德方法了。
人们普遍认为,医疗保健系统是一个复杂的系统,因此面临着复杂的问题。从这个角度来看,医疗质量可以被概念化为医疗保健系统的一个新兴结果,它比医疗保健的各个组成部分(在投入和过程方面)的总和还要多,而质量改进则是一个复杂的系统问题。然而,多纳贝迪恩的结构/过程/结果框架等传统方法植根于线性、还原论的视角,没有认识到医疗质量是在复杂的医疗系统背景下产生的,以及影响医疗质量和健康结果的许多相互作用和不确定性。如果我们要更好地理解和提高医疗质量,就需要进行范式转变,从还原论方法转变为系统思维方法。这种转变首先要在系统背景下提出不同的研究问题,重点是确定干预措施如何促进系统的改善,而不是寻求将干预措施与医疗质量结果直接联系起来。与传统的医疗质量衡量标准孤立地关注系统的单一组成部分不同,研究需要明确地将医疗质量视为一个新兴的系统结果,并确定新的评估指标和方法,以深入了解医疗系统作为一个相互关联的整体是如何运作的。现在正是利用国际医疗质量运动的能量,推动研究和实践创新,采用系统思维方法的大好时机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信