Literature DB >> 19573771

Defining high quality health care.

Matthew R Cooperberg1, John D Birkmeyer, Mark S Litwin.   

Abstract

Most health care quality improvement efforts target measures of health care structures, processes, and/or outcomes. Structural measures examine relatively fixed aspects of health care delivery such as physical plant and human resources. Process measures, the focus of the largest proportion of quality improvement efforts, assess specific transactions in clinical-patient encounters, such as use of appropriate surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, which are expected to improve outcomes. Outcome measures, which comprise quality of life endpoints as well as morbidity and mortality, are of greatest interest to clinicians and patients, but entail the greatest complexity, as the majority of variance in outcomes is attributable to patient and environmental factors that may not be readily modifiable. Selecting among structure, process, and outcome measures for quality improvement efforts generally will be dictated by the specific clinical situation for which improvement is desired. One aspect of health care quality that has received a great deal of attention in recent years is the relationship between surgical volume and health outcomes. Volume, an inherent characteristic of a health care facility or provider, is generally considered a structural measure of quality. Many studies have demonstrated a positive association between volume and outcomes, and policymakers in the private and public sectors have begun to consider volume in certification and reimbursement decisions. The volume-outcome association is not without controversy, however. Most studies in the field are limited by the nature of the administrative data on which they are based, and some studies have found that variation in quality within volume quantiles exceeds differences between quantiles. Moreover, regionalization driven by a focus on volume may exert adverse effects on access to care. The movement for health care quality improvement faces substantial methodological, clinical, financial, and political challenges. Despite these challenges, it is a movement that is gaining momentum, and the emphasis on quality in health care delivery is likely only to increase in the future. It is crucial, therefore, that physicians assume increasing leadership roles in efforts to define, measure, report, and improve quality of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19573771     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.01.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  11 in total

1.  Variations in the quality of care at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Jay Jhaveri; Maxine Sun; Khurshid R Ghani; Jan Schmitges; Wooju Jeong; James O Peabody; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Mani Menon
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2012-04

2.  Design and development of EMR supporting medical process management.

Authors:  Jing-Song Li; Xiao-Guang Zhang; Jian Chu; Muneou Suzuki; Kenji Araki
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.460

3.  Brief history of quality movement in US healthcare.

Authors:  Youssra Marjoua; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2012-12

4.  Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Diabetes Quality of Care: the Role of Healthcare Access and Socioeconomic Status.

Authors:  Juan R Canedo; Stephania T Miller; David Schlundt; Mary K Fadden; Maureen Sanderson
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2017-01-11

5.  Early oncologic outcomes of robotic vs. open radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer.

Authors:  Kenneth G Nepple; Seth A Strope; Robert L Grubb; Adam S Kibel
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011-07-30       Impact factor: 3.498

6.  Trends in quality of care and barriers to improvement in the Indian Health Service.

Authors:  Thomas D Sequist; Theresa Cullen; Kenneth Bernard; Shimon Shaykevich; E John Orav; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-12-04       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  A framework for understanding cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs.

Authors:  William R Carpenter; Anne-Marie Meyer; Amy P Abernethy; Til Stürmer; Michael R Kosorok
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Surgical protocol violations in children with renal tumors provides an opportunity to improve pediatric cancer care: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Authors:  Peter F Ehrlich; Thomas E Hamilton; Kenneth Gow; Douglas Barnhart; Fernando Ferrer; Jessica Kandel; Richard Glick; Roshni Dasgupta; Arlene Naranjo; Ying He; Elizabeth J Perlman; John A Kalapurakal; Geetika Khanna; Jeffrey S Dome; James Geller; Elizabeth Mullen
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 3.167

9.  Identifying Primary Care Pathways from Quality of Care to Outcomes and Satisfaction Using Structural Equation Modeling.

Authors:  Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Sarah Stevens; Andrew R H Dalton; Robert I Griffiths; John L Campbell; Jose M Valderas
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  The effect of referral templates on out-patient quality of care in a hospital setting: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Henrik Wåhlberg; Per Christian Valle; Siri Malm; Øistein Hovde; Ann Ragnhild Broderstad
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.