Do primary care quality improvement frameworks consider equity?

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alice Macdonald Barrell, Lucy Johnson, Amy Dehn Lunn, John Alexander Ford
{"title":"Do primary care quality improvement frameworks consider equity?","authors":"Alice Macdonald Barrell, Lucy Johnson, Amy Dehn Lunn, John Alexander Ford","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quality improvement (QI) is used by healthcare organisations internationally to improve care. Unless QI explicitly addresses equity, projects that aim to improve care may exacerbate health and care inequalities for disadvantaged groups. There are several QI frameworks used in primary care, but we do not know the extent to which they consider equity. This work aimed to investigate whether primary care QI frameworks consider equity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and key websites to compile a list of the QI frameworks used in primary care. This list was refined by an expert panel. Guidance documents for each of the QI frameworks were identified from national websites or QI organisations. We undertook a document analysis of the guidance using NVivo.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analysed 15 guidance documents. We identified the following themes: (1) there was a limited discussion of equity or targeted QI for disadvantaged groups in the documents, (2) there were indirect considerations of inequalities via patient involvement or targeting QI to patient demographics and (3) there was a greater focus on efficiency than equity in the documents.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is limited consideration of equity in QI frameworks used in primary care. Where equity is discussed, it is implicit and open to interpretation. This research demonstrates a need for frameworks to be revised with an explicit equity focus to ensure the distribution of benefits from QI is equitable.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11284938/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002839","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Quality improvement (QI) is used by healthcare organisations internationally to improve care. Unless QI explicitly addresses equity, projects that aim to improve care may exacerbate health and care inequalities for disadvantaged groups. There are several QI frameworks used in primary care, but we do not know the extent to which they consider equity. This work aimed to investigate whether primary care QI frameworks consider equity.

Methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and key websites to compile a list of the QI frameworks used in primary care. This list was refined by an expert panel. Guidance documents for each of the QI frameworks were identified from national websites or QI organisations. We undertook a document analysis of the guidance using NVivo.

Results: We analysed 15 guidance documents. We identified the following themes: (1) there was a limited discussion of equity or targeted QI for disadvantaged groups in the documents, (2) there were indirect considerations of inequalities via patient involvement or targeting QI to patient demographics and (3) there was a greater focus on efficiency than equity in the documents.

Conclusion: There is limited consideration of equity in QI frameworks used in primary care. Where equity is discussed, it is implicit and open to interpretation. This research demonstrates a need for frameworks to be revised with an explicit equity focus to ensure the distribution of benefits from QI is equitable.

初级医疗质量改进框架是否考虑了公平性?
背景:质量改进(QI)在国际上被医疗机构用于改善医疗服务。除非质量改进能明确解决公平问题,否则旨在改善护理的项目可能会加剧弱势群体在健康和护理方面的不平等。在初级医疗中使用的 QI 框架有很多,但我们不知道这些框架在多大程度上考虑了公平性。这项工作旨在调查初级医疗质量改进框架是否考虑了公平性:方法:我们对 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和主要网站进行了检索,以编制一份在初级医疗中使用的 QI 框架清单。专家小组对这份清单进行了完善。我们从国家网站或 QI 组织中找到了每个 QI 框架的指导文件。我们使用 NVivo 对指导文件进行了分析:我们分析了 15 份指导文件。我们确定了以下主题:(1) 文件中对公平或针对弱势群体的质量改进的讨论有限,(2) 通过患者参与或针对患者人口统计的质量改进间接考虑了不平等问题,(3) 文件中更注重效率而非公平:结论:在基层医疗机构使用的质量改进框架中,对公平性的考虑十分有限。即使讨论了公平问题,也是隐含的、可解释的。这项研究表明,有必要在修订框架时明确以公平为重点,以确保公平分配质量改进所带来的益处。
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
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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