The Donabedian model is a widely used framework for assessing the quality of healthcare. It examines three aspects of healthcare: structure, process, and outcomes. Structure refers to attributes of the healthcare system like facilities and staff. Process measures what is actually done in giving and receiving care. Outcomes are changes in patients' health, knowledge, or satisfaction from healthcare. The model suggests these factors are interrelated and assessing all three can provide insights into quality of care. It was developed in the 1960s and remains a dominant paradigm for healthcare quality assessment.
This document discusses clinical audit, which seeks to improve patient care through systematic review of care against criteria and implementing changes where needed. It defines audit and outlines the audit cycle of selecting a topic, identifying standards, collecting data on performance, implementing changes if needed, and monitoring further to ensure improvement. The document provides examples of what can be audited, such as structure, processes of care, or outcomes. It emphasizes that audit criteria should be evidence-based and measurable. The goal of audit is to continuously improve quality of care.
A Process-Centered Approach to the Description of Clinical Pathways Forms and...Lisa Graves
This document summarizes a study that examined the forms of presentation of clinical pathways that physicians require in hospital information systems and electronic medical records. The study found that physicians need the presentation of clinical pathways to change depending on the phase of diagnosis and treatment. It identified some of the main factors that determine the choice of clinical pathway presentation. While not conclusive, the study provides initial directions for further research on optimal interface design in systems that support dynamic management of clinical pathways.
A Process-Centered Approach to the Description of Clinical Pathways Forms and...Jessica Navarro
This document summarizes a study that examined the forms of presentation of clinical pathways that physicians require in hospital information systems and electronic medical records. The study found that physicians need the presentation of clinical pathways to change depending on the phase of diagnosis and treatment. It identified some of the main factors that determine the choice of clinical pathway presentation. While not conclusive, the study provides initial directions for further research on optimal interface design in systems that support dynamic management of clinical pathways.
HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docxAlysonDuongtw
HS410 Unit 6: Quality Management - Discussion
Discussion
This is a graded Discussion
. Please refer to the Discussion Board Grading Rubric in Course Home / Grading Rubrics.
Respond to all of the following questions and be sure to respond to two of your other classmates’ postings:
1.
What are the steps in the quality improvement model and how is benchmarking involved?
2. What are the stages in which data quality errors found in a health record most commonly occur?
3. What is the definition of risk management?
4. What are the parts of an effective risk management program?
5. What is utilization review and why is it important in healthcare?
6. What is the process of utilization review?
Please paper should be 400-500 words and in an essay format, strictly on topic, original with real scholar references to support your answers.
NO PHARGIARISM PLEASE!
This is the Chapter reading for this assignment:
Read Chapter 7 in
Today’s Health Information Management
.
INTRODUCTION
Quality health care “means doing the right thing at the right time, in the right way, for the right person, and getting the best possible results.”1 The term quality, by definition, can mean excellence, status, or grade; thus, it can be measured and quantified. The patient, and perhaps the patient's family, may interpret quality health care differently from the way that health care providers interpret it. Therefore, it is important to determine—if possible—what is “right” and what is “wrong” with regard to quality health care. The study and analysis of health care are important to maintain a level of quality that is satisfactory to all parties involved. As a result of the current focus on patient safety, and in an attempt to reduce deaths and complications, providing the best quality health care while maintaining cost controls has become a challenge to all involved. Current quality initiatives are multifaceted and include government-directed, private sectorsupported, and consumer-driven projects.
This chapter explores the historical development of health care quality including a review of the important pioneers and the tools they developed. Their work has been studied, refined, and widely used in a variety of applications related to performance-improvement activities. Risk management is discussed, with emphasis on the importance of coordination with quality activities. The evolution of utilization management is also reviewed, with a focus on its relationship to quality management.
In addition, this chapter explores current trends in data collection and storage, and their application to improvements in quality care and patient safety. Current events are identified that influence and provide direction to legislative support and funding. This chapter also provides multiple tips and tools for both personal and institutional use.
DATA QUALITY
Data quality refers to the high grade, superiority, or excellence of data. Data quality is intertwined with the concept of.
Annual Results and Impact Evaluation Workshop for RBF - Day One - Paper - Opp...RBFHealth
This document discusses opportunities to strengthen quality of care in results-based financing (RBF) programs. It reviews common quality gaps in low- and middle-income countries, such as lack of essential commodities and poor adherence to evidence-based standards. The document describes six dimensions of quality and principles of quality improvement. It explores methods of measuring quality, including their advantages and disadvantages, and challenges of measurement in resource-constrained settings. The document also discusses ways RBF programs can incentivize better quality, such as through quality performance measures and alignment with broader health system strengthening efforts.
Hesselink et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14389ht.docxpooleavelina
Hesselink et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:389
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/389
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Improving patient discharge and reducing
hospital readmissions by using Intervention
Mapping
Gijs Hesselink1*, Marieke Zegers1, Myrra Vernooij-Dassen1,2,3, Paul Barach4,5,6, Cor Kalkman4, Maria Flink7,8,
Gunnar Öhlén9,10, Mariann Olsson7,8, Susanne Bergenbrant11, Carola Orrego12, Rosa Suñol12, Giulio Toccafondi13,
Francesco Venneri13, Ewa Dudzik-Urbaniak14, Basia Kutryba14, Lisette Schoonhoven1, Hub Wollersheim1
and on behalf of the European HANDOVER Research Collaborative
Abstract
Background: There is a growing impetus to reorganize the hospital discharge process to reduce avoidable
readmissions and costs. The aim of this study was to provide insight into hospital discharge problems and
underlying causes, and to give an overview of solutions that guide providers and policy-makers in improving
hospital discharge.
Methods: The Intervention Mapping framework was used. First, a problem analysis studying the scale, causes, and
consequences of ineffective hospital discharge was carried out. The analysis was based on primary data from 26
focus group interviews and 321 individual interviews with patients and relatives, and involved hospital and
community care providers. Second, improvements in terms of intervention outcomes, performance objectives and
change objectives were specified. Third, 220 experts were consulted and a systematic review of effective discharge
interventions was carried out to select theory-based methods and practical strategies required to achieve change
and better performance.
Results: Ineffective discharge is related to factors at the level of the individual care provider, the patient, the
relationship between providers, and the organisational and technical support for care providers. Providers can
reduce hospital readmission rates and adverse events by focusing on high-quality discharge information, well-
coordinated care, and direct and timely communication with their counterpart colleagues. Patients, or their carers,
should participate in the discharge process and be well aware of their health status and treatment. Assessment by
hospital care providers whether discharge information is accurate and understood by patients and their community
counterparts, are important examples of overcoming identified barriers to effective discharge. Discharge templates,
medication reconciliation, a liaison nurse or pharmacist, regular site visits and teach-back are identified as effective
and promising strategies to achieve the desired behavioural and environmental change.
Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive guiding framework for providers and policy-makers to improve
patient handover from hospital to primary care.
Keywords: Patient handoff, Patient discharge, Patient readmission, Intervention mapping, Adverse events
* Correspondence: [email protected]
1Radboud University Medical Center, Sc ...
This document discusses quality improvement and patient safety in anesthesia. It defines key terms like quality improvement, continuous quality improvement and differentiates it from traditional quality assurance. It outlines frameworks for improvement like the Model for Improvement and discusses tools used for quality improvement like Lean methodology, Six Sigma and PDSA cycles. It discusses important measures for quality improvement like process, outcome and balancing measures. Methods for analyzing and displaying quality improvement data like control charts and dashboards are described. Sources of quality improvement information and the importance of incident reporting are also summarized.
This document discusses clinical audit, which seeks to improve patient care through systematic review of care against criteria and implementing changes where needed. It defines audit and outlines the audit cycle of selecting a topic, identifying standards, collecting data on performance, implementing changes if needed, and monitoring further to ensure improvement. The document provides examples of what can be audited, such as structure, processes of care, or outcomes. It emphasizes that audit criteria should be evidence-based and measurable. The goal of audit is to continuously improve quality of care.
A Process-Centered Approach to the Description of Clinical Pathways Forms and...Lisa Graves
This document summarizes a study that examined the forms of presentation of clinical pathways that physicians require in hospital information systems and electronic medical records. The study found that physicians need the presentation of clinical pathways to change depending on the phase of diagnosis and treatment. It identified some of the main factors that determine the choice of clinical pathway presentation. While not conclusive, the study provides initial directions for further research on optimal interface design in systems that support dynamic management of clinical pathways.
A Process-Centered Approach to the Description of Clinical Pathways Forms and...Jessica Navarro
This document summarizes a study that examined the forms of presentation of clinical pathways that physicians require in hospital information systems and electronic medical records. The study found that physicians need the presentation of clinical pathways to change depending on the phase of diagnosis and treatment. It identified some of the main factors that determine the choice of clinical pathway presentation. While not conclusive, the study provides initial directions for further research on optimal interface design in systems that support dynamic management of clinical pathways.
HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docxAlysonDuongtw
HS410 Unit 6: Quality Management - Discussion
Discussion
This is a graded Discussion
. Please refer to the Discussion Board Grading Rubric in Course Home / Grading Rubrics.
Respond to all of the following questions and be sure to respond to two of your other classmates’ postings:
1.
What are the steps in the quality improvement model and how is benchmarking involved?
2. What are the stages in which data quality errors found in a health record most commonly occur?
3. What is the definition of risk management?
4. What are the parts of an effective risk management program?
5. What is utilization review and why is it important in healthcare?
6. What is the process of utilization review?
Please paper should be 400-500 words and in an essay format, strictly on topic, original with real scholar references to support your answers.
NO PHARGIARISM PLEASE!
This is the Chapter reading for this assignment:
Read Chapter 7 in
Today’s Health Information Management
.
INTRODUCTION
Quality health care “means doing the right thing at the right time, in the right way, for the right person, and getting the best possible results.”1 The term quality, by definition, can mean excellence, status, or grade; thus, it can be measured and quantified. The patient, and perhaps the patient's family, may interpret quality health care differently from the way that health care providers interpret it. Therefore, it is important to determine—if possible—what is “right” and what is “wrong” with regard to quality health care. The study and analysis of health care are important to maintain a level of quality that is satisfactory to all parties involved. As a result of the current focus on patient safety, and in an attempt to reduce deaths and complications, providing the best quality health care while maintaining cost controls has become a challenge to all involved. Current quality initiatives are multifaceted and include government-directed, private sectorsupported, and consumer-driven projects.
This chapter explores the historical development of health care quality including a review of the important pioneers and the tools they developed. Their work has been studied, refined, and widely used in a variety of applications related to performance-improvement activities. Risk management is discussed, with emphasis on the importance of coordination with quality activities. The evolution of utilization management is also reviewed, with a focus on its relationship to quality management.
In addition, this chapter explores current trends in data collection and storage, and their application to improvements in quality care and patient safety. Current events are identified that influence and provide direction to legislative support and funding. This chapter also provides multiple tips and tools for both personal and institutional use.
DATA QUALITY
Data quality refers to the high grade, superiority, or excellence of data. Data quality is intertwined with the concept of.
Annual Results and Impact Evaluation Workshop for RBF - Day One - Paper - Opp...RBFHealth
This document discusses opportunities to strengthen quality of care in results-based financing (RBF) programs. It reviews common quality gaps in low- and middle-income countries, such as lack of essential commodities and poor adherence to evidence-based standards. The document describes six dimensions of quality and principles of quality improvement. It explores methods of measuring quality, including their advantages and disadvantages, and challenges of measurement in resource-constrained settings. The document also discusses ways RBF programs can incentivize better quality, such as through quality performance measures and alignment with broader health system strengthening efforts.
Hesselink et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14389ht.docxpooleavelina
Hesselink et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:389
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/389
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Improving patient discharge and reducing
hospital readmissions by using Intervention
Mapping
Gijs Hesselink1*, Marieke Zegers1, Myrra Vernooij-Dassen1,2,3, Paul Barach4,5,6, Cor Kalkman4, Maria Flink7,8,
Gunnar Öhlén9,10, Mariann Olsson7,8, Susanne Bergenbrant11, Carola Orrego12, Rosa Suñol12, Giulio Toccafondi13,
Francesco Venneri13, Ewa Dudzik-Urbaniak14, Basia Kutryba14, Lisette Schoonhoven1, Hub Wollersheim1
and on behalf of the European HANDOVER Research Collaborative
Abstract
Background: There is a growing impetus to reorganize the hospital discharge process to reduce avoidable
readmissions and costs. The aim of this study was to provide insight into hospital discharge problems and
underlying causes, and to give an overview of solutions that guide providers and policy-makers in improving
hospital discharge.
Methods: The Intervention Mapping framework was used. First, a problem analysis studying the scale, causes, and
consequences of ineffective hospital discharge was carried out. The analysis was based on primary data from 26
focus group interviews and 321 individual interviews with patients and relatives, and involved hospital and
community care providers. Second, improvements in terms of intervention outcomes, performance objectives and
change objectives were specified. Third, 220 experts were consulted and a systematic review of effective discharge
interventions was carried out to select theory-based methods and practical strategies required to achieve change
and better performance.
Results: Ineffective discharge is related to factors at the level of the individual care provider, the patient, the
relationship between providers, and the organisational and technical support for care providers. Providers can
reduce hospital readmission rates and adverse events by focusing on high-quality discharge information, well-
coordinated care, and direct and timely communication with their counterpart colleagues. Patients, or their carers,
should participate in the discharge process and be well aware of their health status and treatment. Assessment by
hospital care providers whether discharge information is accurate and understood by patients and their community
counterparts, are important examples of overcoming identified barriers to effective discharge. Discharge templates,
medication reconciliation, a liaison nurse or pharmacist, regular site visits and teach-back are identified as effective
and promising strategies to achieve the desired behavioural and environmental change.
Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive guiding framework for providers and policy-makers to improve
patient handover from hospital to primary care.
Keywords: Patient handoff, Patient discharge, Patient readmission, Intervention mapping, Adverse events
* Correspondence: [email protected]
1Radboud University Medical Center, Sc ...
This document discusses quality improvement and patient safety in anesthesia. It defines key terms like quality improvement, continuous quality improvement and differentiates it from traditional quality assurance. It outlines frameworks for improvement like the Model for Improvement and discusses tools used for quality improvement like Lean methodology, Six Sigma and PDSA cycles. It discusses important measures for quality improvement like process, outcome and balancing measures. Methods for analyzing and displaying quality improvement data like control charts and dashboards are described. Sources of quality improvement information and the importance of incident reporting are also summarized.
The document discusses patient expectations of health care. It notes that understanding patient expectations is important for improving patient satisfaction and delivering patient-centered care. However, most research has focused only on expectations for specific diseases. The document aims to better understand how patients conceptualize their expectations across different clinical contexts and conditions.
Quality improvement approaches can play a role in enhancing the quality of health services provided at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. A quality improvement intervention is defined as a change process intended to increase the likelihood of optimal clinical quality and positive health outcomes. Quality improvement requires an ongoing feedback loop to identify opportunities to enhance care and outcomes for future patients.
The document discusses definitions and concepts related to quality, safety, and outcomes in healthcare. It defines key terms like quality, indicators, benchmarking, and outlines the Institute of Medicine's aims for quality improvement which are to be safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. It also discusses measuring outcomes, identifying different types of outcome indicators, the process of outcomes management, and different types of research related to outcomes like outcomes research, comparative effectiveness research, and nursing outcomes research.
This document discusses fundamentals of quality in healthcare. It defines key terms like quality assurance, quality of care, and factors driving attention to quality like limited resources and patient demands. It describes Donabedian's framework for assessing quality, which looks at structure, process and outcomes. Achieving quality requires accessible, efficient and acceptable services. Ensuring quality involves continuous quality improvement approaches like plan-do-check-act cycles and evidence-based medicine. The goal is to provide high quality care through ongoing evaluation and improvement.
This document discusses fundamentals of quality in healthcare. It defines key terms like quality assurance, total quality management, and continuous quality improvement. It explains that quality can be assessed based on structure, process, and outcomes. Structure looks at the environment where care is provided. Process examines the care provided by practitioners. Outcomes assess the benefits achieved by patients. Achieving quality requires accessible, efficient, and acceptable services based on current knowledge. Continuous efforts are needed to monitor, assess, and improve healthcare quality.
This document summarizes a research study that used the Intervention Mapping framework to develop a guiding framework for improving patient discharge from hospitals to primary care. The study conducted interviews and focus groups with patients, families, and providers to identify barriers to effective discharge. Key issues included lack of communication between hospital and primary care providers, incomplete discharge information, and lack of patient understanding. The study then defined desired outcomes, specific performance objectives, and change objectives needed to address the identified barriers. Finally, the study selected evidence-based methods and strategies to achieve the change objectives, such as discharge templates, medication reconciliation, and teach-back techniques. The resulting framework provides guidance for interventions to improve patient handovers between hospital and primary care.
Quality circles originated in Japan after World War II and were inspired by W. Edwards Deming. Quality circles involve voluntary small groups of 6-12 employees who meet regularly to identify improvements in their work area. In healthcare, quality circles are used to (1) identify outstanding features of care, (2) identify obstacles to change, and (3) identify the need for more research. Examples of using quality circles in healthcare include reducing hospital-acquired infections, improving job satisfaction, and enhancing communication.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2003; Volume .docxnormanibarber20063
This document discusses clinical indicators that can be used to measure health care quality. It defines clinical indicators as measures that assess health care processes or outcomes. Indicators can be rate-based, providing quantitative measures over time, or sentinel, identifying undesirable individual events. Indicators can relate to the structure, process, or outcome of care. Structure indicators assess resources, process indicators assess the care provided, and outcome indicators assess the effects of care. Risk adjustment is important when comparing outcomes to account for factors outside of health care. Choosing indicators requires considering the strength of evidence linking the indicator to outcomes.
Controlling Dr.Rangappa.S.Ashi Associate Professor SDM Institute of Nursing S...rangappa
The process of monitoring , comparing , correcting performance and taking action to ensure desired results.
Making right things happen in the right ways and at the right time.
This document discusses quality control in healthcare. It defines quality healthcare and how it is measured using indicators of structure, process, and outcomes. Evidence shows the need to improve quality through reducing errors and inappropriate care. Quality can be achieved by either building or inspecting it, using quality assurance or quality improvement approaches. Factors influencing quality include provider skills, system structure, resources, and education. Tools to improve quality include education, guidelines, and peer review. A comprehensive strategy is needed using incentives, data monitoring, patient empowerment, standards, and information systems to support continuous quality development.
The document provides an overview of the Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation process for hospitals. It describes what accreditation is, the benefits of accreditation, and the accreditation timeline. The standards are organized around important hospital functions and apply to the entire organization as well as individual departments. There are sections that address requirements for maintaining accreditation, patient-centered functions, organizational functions that support patient care, and how standards, intents and measurable elements are used in the accreditation and survey process.
The document provides an overview of the Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation process for hospitals. It describes what accreditation is, its benefits, and timeline. The standards are organized around important hospital functions and patient care. During an on-site survey, surveyors use various methods like document review, interviews, patient tracers, and facility tours to evaluate hospitals' compliance with JCI standards. Scoring guidelines are provided to assess standards as fully met, partially met, not met, or not applicable.
Student Response #1The domain that I believe to be the most si.docxflorriezhamphrey3065
The document discusses the Donabedian model for evaluating healthcare quality, which consists of structure, process, and outcomes. The author argues that the process domain is the most significant because it directly relates to how patients are treated and cared for. Processes like diagnosis, treatment and education have a large impact on patient recovery, satisfaction and outcomes. While all three domains are important, the processes of care delivery are most crucial for ensuring quality. The document also notes that composite measures are now commonly used in addition to the three traditional domains to evaluate overall quality of care.
This document summarizes 27 grants funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) through their Translating Research into Practice (TRIP) program in 1999-2000. The grants targeted a wide range of healthcare providers, settings, and patient populations. Most studies used a randomized controlled trial design. Common interventions included education, and about half aimed to reduce medical errors or use information technology. The TRIP projects encompassed diverse approaches to translating research evidence into practice to improve healthcare quality and outcomes.
Soraya Ghebleh - Clinical Integration and Care CoordinationSoraya Ghebleh
Here is a simple slidedeck of research done that examined which systemic care coordination practices should be maximized according to the literature to improve clinical integration within and between healthcare organizations.
Stakeholder Engagement in a Patient-Reported Outcomes Implementation by a Pra...Marion Sills
Kwan BM, Sills MR, Graham D, Hamer MK, Fairclough DL, Hammermeister KE, Kaiser A, Diaz-Perez MJ, Schilling LM. Stakeholder Engagement in a Patient-Reported Outcomes Implementation by a Practice-Based Research Network. JABFM. In Press.
Partial and Incremental PCMH Practice Transformation: Implications for Qualit...Paul Grundy
Experience of BCBS Michigan in Building medical homes
Based on the observed relationships for partial implementation,full implementation of the PCMH model is associated with a 3.5 percent higher quality composite score, a 5.1 percent higher preventive composite score, and $26.37 lower per member per month medical costs for adults. Full PCMH implementation is also associated with a 12.2 percent higher preventive composite score, but no reductions in costs for pediatric populations. Incremental improvements in PCMH model implementation yielded similar positive effects on quality of care for both adult and pediatric populations but were not associated with cost savings for either population.
Conclusions. Estimated effects of the PCMH model on quality and cost of care
appear to improve with the degree of PCMH implementation achieved and with incremental improvements in implementation.
FINAL MSmith_ Medn Measures that Matter_ AJPB_Jan-Feb 2015Marie Smith, PharmD
This document discusses the need for new quality measures that assess medication management across care settings and providers. It notes that while current measures address prescribing and adherence, they do not address optimization, coordination of medications prescribed by multiple providers, or medication management during care transitions. The document advocates developing measures that close these gaps, such as those assessing comprehensive medication reviews, reconciliation of medication lists during care transitions, and development of patient medication action plans. It provides examples of how measures could be organized into families and sets that cut across conditions and specialties to promote coordination and alignment of quality measurement.
This document summarizes key findings about value-based purchasing models from a systematic review of the research literature. It finds that value-based purchasing initiatives aim to improve quality, slow healthcare spending growth, and reduce unnecessary care through the use of financial incentives linked to provider performance on defined quality measures. Common models include pay for performance programs, accountable care organizations, and bundled payment programs. The document also examines which elements, such as stakeholder engagement and use of evidence-based quality measures, are associated with more effective value-based purchasing programs. However, it notes that firm conclusions about the impact of these programs are difficult to make due to variations in methodology and program design across studies.
The nurse plays an important role in quality improvement by collecting and analyzing data to monitor outcomes of care and identify areas for improvement. Nurses use quality measures and evidence-based guidelines to evaluate nursing-sensitive areas and customize care to patient needs and preferences. Quality improvement is an ongoing process that engages all nurses in planning, testing changes, and implementing strategies to continuously improve patient care and outcomes.
The document discusses patient expectations of health care. It notes that understanding patient expectations is important for improving patient satisfaction and delivering patient-centered care. However, most research has focused only on expectations for specific diseases. The document aims to better understand how patients conceptualize their expectations across different clinical contexts and conditions.
Quality improvement approaches can play a role in enhancing the quality of health services provided at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. A quality improvement intervention is defined as a change process intended to increase the likelihood of optimal clinical quality and positive health outcomes. Quality improvement requires an ongoing feedback loop to identify opportunities to enhance care and outcomes for future patients.
The document discusses definitions and concepts related to quality, safety, and outcomes in healthcare. It defines key terms like quality, indicators, benchmarking, and outlines the Institute of Medicine's aims for quality improvement which are to be safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. It also discusses measuring outcomes, identifying different types of outcome indicators, the process of outcomes management, and different types of research related to outcomes like outcomes research, comparative effectiveness research, and nursing outcomes research.
This document discusses fundamentals of quality in healthcare. It defines key terms like quality assurance, quality of care, and factors driving attention to quality like limited resources and patient demands. It describes Donabedian's framework for assessing quality, which looks at structure, process and outcomes. Achieving quality requires accessible, efficient and acceptable services. Ensuring quality involves continuous quality improvement approaches like plan-do-check-act cycles and evidence-based medicine. The goal is to provide high quality care through ongoing evaluation and improvement.
This document discusses fundamentals of quality in healthcare. It defines key terms like quality assurance, total quality management, and continuous quality improvement. It explains that quality can be assessed based on structure, process, and outcomes. Structure looks at the environment where care is provided. Process examines the care provided by practitioners. Outcomes assess the benefits achieved by patients. Achieving quality requires accessible, efficient, and acceptable services based on current knowledge. Continuous efforts are needed to monitor, assess, and improve healthcare quality.
This document summarizes a research study that used the Intervention Mapping framework to develop a guiding framework for improving patient discharge from hospitals to primary care. The study conducted interviews and focus groups with patients, families, and providers to identify barriers to effective discharge. Key issues included lack of communication between hospital and primary care providers, incomplete discharge information, and lack of patient understanding. The study then defined desired outcomes, specific performance objectives, and change objectives needed to address the identified barriers. Finally, the study selected evidence-based methods and strategies to achieve the change objectives, such as discharge templates, medication reconciliation, and teach-back techniques. The resulting framework provides guidance for interventions to improve patient handovers between hospital and primary care.
Quality circles originated in Japan after World War II and were inspired by W. Edwards Deming. Quality circles involve voluntary small groups of 6-12 employees who meet regularly to identify improvements in their work area. In healthcare, quality circles are used to (1) identify outstanding features of care, (2) identify obstacles to change, and (3) identify the need for more research. Examples of using quality circles in healthcare include reducing hospital-acquired infections, improving job satisfaction, and enhancing communication.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2003; Volume .docxnormanibarber20063
This document discusses clinical indicators that can be used to measure health care quality. It defines clinical indicators as measures that assess health care processes or outcomes. Indicators can be rate-based, providing quantitative measures over time, or sentinel, identifying undesirable individual events. Indicators can relate to the structure, process, or outcome of care. Structure indicators assess resources, process indicators assess the care provided, and outcome indicators assess the effects of care. Risk adjustment is important when comparing outcomes to account for factors outside of health care. Choosing indicators requires considering the strength of evidence linking the indicator to outcomes.
Controlling Dr.Rangappa.S.Ashi Associate Professor SDM Institute of Nursing S...rangappa
The process of monitoring , comparing , correcting performance and taking action to ensure desired results.
Making right things happen in the right ways and at the right time.
This document discusses quality control in healthcare. It defines quality healthcare and how it is measured using indicators of structure, process, and outcomes. Evidence shows the need to improve quality through reducing errors and inappropriate care. Quality can be achieved by either building or inspecting it, using quality assurance or quality improvement approaches. Factors influencing quality include provider skills, system structure, resources, and education. Tools to improve quality include education, guidelines, and peer review. A comprehensive strategy is needed using incentives, data monitoring, patient empowerment, standards, and information systems to support continuous quality development.
The document provides an overview of the Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation process for hospitals. It describes what accreditation is, the benefits of accreditation, and the accreditation timeline. The standards are organized around important hospital functions and apply to the entire organization as well as individual departments. There are sections that address requirements for maintaining accreditation, patient-centered functions, organizational functions that support patient care, and how standards, intents and measurable elements are used in the accreditation and survey process.
The document provides an overview of the Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation process for hospitals. It describes what accreditation is, its benefits, and timeline. The standards are organized around important hospital functions and patient care. During an on-site survey, surveyors use various methods like document review, interviews, patient tracers, and facility tours to evaluate hospitals' compliance with JCI standards. Scoring guidelines are provided to assess standards as fully met, partially met, not met, or not applicable.
Student Response #1The domain that I believe to be the most si.docxflorriezhamphrey3065
The document discusses the Donabedian model for evaluating healthcare quality, which consists of structure, process, and outcomes. The author argues that the process domain is the most significant because it directly relates to how patients are treated and cared for. Processes like diagnosis, treatment and education have a large impact on patient recovery, satisfaction and outcomes. While all three domains are important, the processes of care delivery are most crucial for ensuring quality. The document also notes that composite measures are now commonly used in addition to the three traditional domains to evaluate overall quality of care.
This document summarizes 27 grants funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) through their Translating Research into Practice (TRIP) program in 1999-2000. The grants targeted a wide range of healthcare providers, settings, and patient populations. Most studies used a randomized controlled trial design. Common interventions included education, and about half aimed to reduce medical errors or use information technology. The TRIP projects encompassed diverse approaches to translating research evidence into practice to improve healthcare quality and outcomes.
Soraya Ghebleh - Clinical Integration and Care CoordinationSoraya Ghebleh
Here is a simple slidedeck of research done that examined which systemic care coordination practices should be maximized according to the literature to improve clinical integration within and between healthcare organizations.
Stakeholder Engagement in a Patient-Reported Outcomes Implementation by a Pra...Marion Sills
Kwan BM, Sills MR, Graham D, Hamer MK, Fairclough DL, Hammermeister KE, Kaiser A, Diaz-Perez MJ, Schilling LM. Stakeholder Engagement in a Patient-Reported Outcomes Implementation by a Practice-Based Research Network. JABFM. In Press.
Partial and Incremental PCMH Practice Transformation: Implications for Qualit...Paul Grundy
Experience of BCBS Michigan in Building medical homes
Based on the observed relationships for partial implementation,full implementation of the PCMH model is associated with a 3.5 percent higher quality composite score, a 5.1 percent higher preventive composite score, and $26.37 lower per member per month medical costs for adults. Full PCMH implementation is also associated with a 12.2 percent higher preventive composite score, but no reductions in costs for pediatric populations. Incremental improvements in PCMH model implementation yielded similar positive effects on quality of care for both adult and pediatric populations but were not associated with cost savings for either population.
Conclusions. Estimated effects of the PCMH model on quality and cost of care
appear to improve with the degree of PCMH implementation achieved and with incremental improvements in implementation.
FINAL MSmith_ Medn Measures that Matter_ AJPB_Jan-Feb 2015Marie Smith, PharmD
This document discusses the need for new quality measures that assess medication management across care settings and providers. It notes that while current measures address prescribing and adherence, they do not address optimization, coordination of medications prescribed by multiple providers, or medication management during care transitions. The document advocates developing measures that close these gaps, such as those assessing comprehensive medication reviews, reconciliation of medication lists during care transitions, and development of patient medication action plans. It provides examples of how measures could be organized into families and sets that cut across conditions and specialties to promote coordination and alignment of quality measurement.
This document summarizes key findings about value-based purchasing models from a systematic review of the research literature. It finds that value-based purchasing initiatives aim to improve quality, slow healthcare spending growth, and reduce unnecessary care through the use of financial incentives linked to provider performance on defined quality measures. Common models include pay for performance programs, accountable care organizations, and bundled payment programs. The document also examines which elements, such as stakeholder engagement and use of evidence-based quality measures, are associated with more effective value-based purchasing programs. However, it notes that firm conclusions about the impact of these programs are difficult to make due to variations in methodology and program design across studies.
The nurse plays an important role in quality improvement by collecting and analyzing data to monitor outcomes of care and identify areas for improvement. Nurses use quality measures and evidence-based guidelines to evaluate nursing-sensitive areas and customize care to patient needs and preferences. Quality improvement is an ongoing process that engages all nurses in planning, testing changes, and implementing strategies to continuously improve patient care and outcomes.
Cell Therapy Expansion and Challenges in Autoimmune DiseaseHealth Advances
There is increasing confidence that cell therapies will soon play a role in the treatment of autoimmune disorders, but the extent of this impact remains to be seen. Early readouts on autologous CAR-Ts in lupus are encouraging, but manufacturing and cost limitations are likely to restrict access to highly refractory patients. Allogeneic CAR-Ts have the potential to broaden access to earlier lines of treatment due to their inherent cost benefits, however they will need to demonstrate comparable or improved efficacy to established modalities.
In addition to infrastructure and capacity constraints, CAR-Ts face a very different risk-benefit dynamic in autoimmune compared to oncology, highlighting the need for tolerable therapies with low adverse event risk. CAR-NK and Treg-based therapies are also being developed in certain autoimmune disorders and may demonstrate favorable safety profiles. Several novel non-cell therapies such as bispecific antibodies, nanobodies, and RNAi drugs, may also offer future alternative competitive solutions with variable value propositions.
Widespread adoption of cell therapies will not only require strong efficacy and safety data, but also adapted pricing and access strategies. At oncology-based price points, CAR-Ts are unlikely to achieve broad market access in autoimmune disorders, with eligible patient populations that are potentially orders of magnitude greater than the number of currently addressable cancer patients. Developers have made strides towards reducing cell therapy COGS while improving manufacturing efficiency, but payors will inevitably restrict access until more sustainable pricing is achieved.
Despite these headwinds, industry leaders and investors remain confident that cell therapies are poised to address significant unmet need in patients suffering from autoimmune disorders. However, the extent of this impact on the treatment landscape remains to be seen, as the industry rapidly approaches an inflection point.
Integrating Ayurveda into Parkinson’s Management: A Holistic ApproachAyurveda ForAll
Explore the benefits of combining Ayurveda with conventional Parkinson's treatments. Learn how a holistic approach can manage symptoms, enhance well-being, and balance body energies. Discover the steps to safely integrate Ayurvedic practices into your Parkinson’s care plan, including expert guidance on diet, herbal remedies, and lifestyle modifications.
Rasamanikya is a excellent preparation in the field of Rasashastra, it is used in various Kushtha Roga, Shwasa, Vicharchika, Bhagandara, Vatarakta, and Phiranga Roga. In this article Preparation& Comparative analytical profile for both Formulationon i.e Rasamanikya prepared by Kushmanda swarasa & Churnodhaka Shodita Haratala. The study aims to provide insights into the comparative efficacy and analytical aspects of these formulations for enhanced therapeutic outcomes.
Osteoporosis - Definition , Evaluation and Management .pdfJim Jacob Roy
Osteoporosis is an increasing cause of morbidity among the elderly.
In this document , a brief outline of osteoporosis is given , including the risk factors of osteoporosis fractures , the indications for testing bone mineral density and the management of osteoporosis
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.comreignlana06
The UK is currently facing a Adhd Medication Shortage Uk, which has left many patients and their families grappling with uncertainty and frustration. ADHD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is a chronic condition that requires consistent medication to manage effectively. This shortage has highlighted the critical role these medications play in the daily lives of those affected by ADHD. Contact : +1 (747) 209 – 3649 E-mail : sales@trinexpharmacy.com
Travel vaccination in Manchester offers comprehensive immunization services for individuals planning international trips. Expert healthcare providers administer vaccines tailored to your destination, ensuring you stay protected against various diseases. Conveniently located clinics and flexible appointment options make it easy to get the necessary shots before your journey. Stay healthy and travel with confidence by getting vaccinated in Manchester. Visit us: www.nxhealthcare.co.uk
Histololgy of Female Reproductive System.pptxAyeshaZaid1
Dive into an in-depth exploration of the histological structure of female reproductive system with this comprehensive lecture. Presented by Dr. Ayesha Irfan, Assistant Professor of Anatomy, this presentation covers the Gross anatomy and functional histology of the female reproductive organs. Ideal for students, educators, and anyone interested in medical science, this lecture provides clear explanations, detailed diagrams, and valuable insights into female reproductive system. Enhance your knowledge and understanding of this essential aspect of human biology.
These lecture slides, by Dr Sidra Arshad, offer a quick overview of the physiological basis of a normal electrocardiogram.
Learning objectives:
1. Define an electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrocardiography
2. Describe how dipoles generated by the heart produce the waveforms of the ECG
3. Describe the components of a normal electrocardiogram of a typical bipolar lead (limb II)
4. Differentiate between intervals and segments
5. Enlist some common indications for obtaining an ECG
6. Describe the flow of current around the heart during the cardiac cycle
7. Discuss the placement and polarity of the leads of electrocardiograph
8. Describe the normal electrocardiograms recorded from the limb leads and explain the physiological basis of the different records that are obtained
9. Define mean electrical vector (axis) of the heart and give the normal range
10. Define the mean QRS vector
11. Describe the axes of leads (hexagonal reference system)
12. Comprehend the vectorial analysis of the normal ECG
13. Determine the mean electrical axis of the ventricular QRS and appreciate the mean axis deviation
14. Explain the concepts of current of injury, J point, and their significance
Study Resources:
1. Chapter 11, Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, 14th edition
2. Chapter 9, Human Physiology - From Cells to Systems, Lauralee Sherwood, 9th edition
3. Chapter 29, Ganong’s Review of Medical Physiology, 26th edition
4. Electrocardiogram, StatPearls - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549803/
5. ECG in Medical Practice by ABM Abdullah, 4th edition
6. Chapter 3, Cardiology Explained, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2214/
7. ECG Basics, http://www.nataliescasebook.com/tag/e-c-g-basics
Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central19various
Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa CentralClinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa CentralClinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa CentralClinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central
Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central
Donabedian Model.docx
1. Donabedian Model
The Donabedian model is a conceptual model that provides a framework for examining health
services and evaluating quality of health care.[1]
According to the model, information about quality of
care can be drawn from three categories: “structure,” “process,” and “outcomes."[2]
Structure
describes the context in which care is delivered, including hospital buildings, staff, financing, and
equipment. Process denotes the transactions between patients and providers throughout the
delivery of healthcare. Finally, outcomes refer to the effects of healthcare on the health status of
patients and populations.[2]
Avedis Donabedian, a physician and health services researcher at
the University of Michigan, developed the original model in 1966.[3]
While there are other quality of
care frameworks, including the World Health Organization (WHO)-Recommended Quality of Care
Framework and the Bamako Initiative, the Donabedian Model continues to be the dominant
paradigm for assessing the quality of health care.[4]
Contents
1Dimensions of Care
o 1.1Structure
o 1.2Process
o 1.3Outcome
2Applications
3Criticisms and adaptations
4History
5References
Dimensions of Care[edit]
The model is most often represented by a chain of three boxes containing structure, process, and
outcome connected by unidirectional arrows in that order. These boxes represent three types of
information that may be collected in order to draw inferences about quality of care in a given
system [5]
Structure[edit]
Structure includes all of the factors that affect the context in which care is delivered. This includes
the physical facility, equipment, and human resources, as well as organizational characteristics such
as staff training and payment methods. These factors control how providers and patients in a
healthcare system act and are measures of the average quality of care within a facility or system.
Structure is often easy to observe and measure and it may be the upstream cause of problems
identified in process.[5]
Process[edit]
Process is the sum of all actions that make up healthcare. These commonly include diagnosis,
treatment, preventive care, and patient education but may be expanded to include actions taken by
the patients or their families. Processes can be further classified as technical processes, how care is
delivered, or interpersonal processes, which all encompass the manner in which care is
delivered.[6]
According to Donabedian, the measurement of process is nearly equivalent to the
measurement of quality of care because process contains all acts of healthcare
delivery.[5]
Information about process can be obtained from medical records, interviews with patients
and practitioners, or direct observations of healthcare visits.
2. Outcome[edit]
Outcome contains all the effects of healthcare on patients or populations, including changes to
health status, behavior, or knowledge as well as patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life.
Outcomes are sometimes seen as the most important indicators of quality because improving patient
health status is the primary goal of healthcare. However, accurately measuring outcomes that can
be attributed exclusively to healthcare is very difficult.[6]
Drawing connections between process and
outcomes often requires large sample populations, adjustments by case mix, and long-term follow
ups as outcomes may take considerable time to become observable.[5]
Although it is widely recognized and applied in many health care related fields, the Donabedian
Model was developed to assess quality of care in clinical practice.[7]
The model does not have an
implicit definition of quality care so that it can be applied to problems of broad or narrow
scope.[6]
Donabedian notes that each of the three domains has advantages and disadvantages that
necessitate researchers to draw connections between them in order to create a chain of causation
that is conceptually useful for understanding systems as well as designing experiments and
interventions.[5]
Applications[edit]
Donabedian developed his quality of care framework to be flexible enough for application in diverse
healthcare settings and among various levels within a delivery system.
At its most basic level, the framework can be used to modify structures and processes within a
healthcare delivery unit, such as a small group practice or ambulatory care center, to improve patient
flow or information exchange. For instance, health administrators in a small physician practice may
be interested in improving their treatment coordination process through enhanced communication of
lab results from laboratorian to provider in an effort to streamline patient care. The process for
information exchange, in this case the transfer of lab results to the attending physician, depends on
the structure for receiving and interpreting results. The structure could involve an electronic health
record (EHR) that a laboratorian fills out with lab results for use by the physician to complete a
diagnosis. To improve this process, a healthcare administrator may look at the structure and decide
to purchase an information technology (IT) solution of pop-up alerts for actionable lab results to
incorporate into the EHR. The process could be modified through a change in standard protocol of
determining how and when an alert is released and who is responsible for each step in the process.
The outcomes to evaluate the efficacy of this quality improvement (QI) solution might include patient
satisfaction, timeliness of diagnosis, or clinical outcomes.[8]
In addition to examining quality within a healthcare delivery unit, the Donabedian model is applicable
to the structure and process for treating certain diseases and conditions with the aim to improve the
quality of chronic disease management. For example, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a
condition with significant morbidity and mortality and substantial disparities in outcomes among
rheumatic diseases. The propensity for SLE care to be fragmented and poorly coordinated, as well
as evidence that healthcare system factors associated with improved SLE outcomes are modifiable,
points to an opportunity for process improvement through changes in preventive care, monitoring,
and effective self-care. A researcher may develop evidence within these areas to analyze the
relationship between structure and process to outcomes in SLE care for the purposes of finding
solutions to improve outcomes. An analysis of SLE care structure may reveal an association
between access to care and financing to quality outcomes. An analysis of process may look at
hospital and physician specialty in SLE care and how it relates to SLE mortality in hospitals, or the
effect on outcomes by including additional QI indicators to the diagnosis and treatment of SLE. To
assess these changes in structure and process, evidence garnered from changes in mortality,
disease damage, and health-related quality of life would be used to validate structure-process
changes.[9]
3. Donabedian’s model can also be applied to a large health system to measure overall quality and
align improvement work across a hospital, group practice or the large integrated health system to
improve quality and outcomes for a population. In 2007, the US Institute for Healthcare Improvement
proposed “whole system measures” that address structure, process, and outcomes of care.[10]
These
indicators supply health care leaders with data to evaluate the organization’s performance in order to
design strategic QI planning. The indicators are limited to 13 non-disease specific measures that
provide system-level indications of quality, applicable to both inpatient and outpatient settings and
across the continuum of care. In addition to informing the QI plan, these measures can be used to
evaluate the quality of the system’s care over time, how it performs relative to stated strategic
planning goals, and how it performs compared to similar organizations.[11]
Criticisms and adaptations[edit]
While the Donabedian model continues to serve as a touchstone framework in health services
research, potential limitations have been suggested by other researchers, and, in some cases,
adaptations of the model have been proposed. The sequential progression from structure to process
to outcome has been described by some as too linear of a framework,[12]
and consequently has a
limited utility for recognizing how the three domains influence and interact with each other.[13]
The
model has also been criticized for failing to incorporate antecedent characteristics (e.g. patient
characteristics, environmental factors) which are important precursors to evaluating quality
care.[14]
Coyle and Battles suggest that these factors are vital to fully understanding the true
effectiveness of new strategies or modifications within the care process.[15]
According to Coyle and
Battles, patient factors include genetics, socio-demographics, health habits, beliefs and attitudes,
and preferences.[15]
Environmental factors include the patients' cultural, social, political, personal, and
physical characteristics, as well as factors related to the health profession itself.[15]
History[edit]
Avedis Donabedian first described the three elements of the Donabedian Model in his 1966 article,
“Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care.” As a preface to his analysis of methodologies used in
health services research, Donabedian identified the three dimensions that can be utilized to assess
quality of care (structure, process, and outcome) that would later become the core divisions of the
Donabedian Model.[16]
“Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care” became one of the most frequently
cited public health-related articles of the 20th century, and the Donabedian Model gained
widespread acceptance.[17]
In 1980, Donabedian published The Definition of Quality and Approaches to its Assessment, vol. 1:
Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring, which provided a more in-depth description of
the structure—process– outcome paradigm. In his book, Donabedian once again defines structure,
process, and outcome, and clarifies that these categories should not be mistaken for attributes of
quality, but rather they are the classifications for the types of information that can be obtained in
order to infer whether the quality of care is poor, fair, or good.[5]
Furthermore, he states that in order
to make inferences about quality, there needs to be an established relationship between the three
categories and that this relationship between categories is a probability rather than a certainty.
References[edit]
1. ^ McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, et al. (2007). Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis
of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 7: Care Coordination). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (US); 2007 Jun.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Donabedian, A. (1988). "The quality of care: How can it be
assessed?". JAMA. 260 (12): 1743–8. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033. PMID 3045356.
3. ^ Frenk, J. (2000). Bulletin of the World Health Organization: Obituary of Avedis Donabedian, 70 (12).
4. 4. ^ McQuestion, M.J. (2006) Presentation: Quality of Care. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f
Donabedian(2003). An introduction to quality assurance in health care. (1st ed.,
Vol. 1). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Donabedian, A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring Vol. 1. The
Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press,
1980.
7. ^ Andersen R.M, Rice T.R, and Kominski G.F., (2007) Changing the U.S. Health Care System, Third
Edit. Jossey-Bass, pp. 187–190.
8. ^ McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, et al. (2007) Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis
of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 7: Care Coordination). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (US); 2007 Jun. (Technical Reviews, No. 9.7.) 5, Conceptual Frameworks and
Their Application to Evaluating Care Coordination Interventions.
9. ^ Lawson EF & Yazdany J. Healthcare quality in systemic lupus erythematosus: using Donabedian’s
conceptual framework to understand what we know. International Journal of Clinical
Rheumatology 7(1): 95-107, published February 2012.
10. ^ Brien SE & Ghali WA. Public reporting of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR):
implications for the Canadian approach to safety and quality in health care Archived June 19, 2013, at
the Wayback Machine. Open Medicine 2(3), published 2008.
11. ^ Martin LA, Nelson EC, Lloyd RC, Nolan TW. Whole system measures. IHI Innovation Series white
paper. Cambridge (MA): Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2007.
12. ^ Mitchell PH, Ferketich S, Jennings BM (1998). "Quality health outcomes model. American Academy
of Nursing Expert Panel on Quality Health Care". Image: the Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 30 (1):
43–6. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1998.tb01234.x. PMID 9549940.
13. ^ Carayon P., Schoofs Hundt A., Karsh B.-T., Gurses A. P., Alvarado C. J., Smith M., Flatley Brennan
P. (2006). "Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model". Quality and Safety in Health
Care. 15 Suppl 1: i50-8. doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015842. PMC 2464868. PMID 17142610.
14. ^ Coyle YM, Battles JB (1999). "Using antecedents of medical care to develop valid quality of care
measures". Int J Qual Health Care. 11 (1): 5–12. doi:10.1093/intqhc/11.1.5. PMID 10411284.
15. ^ Jump up to:a b c Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Teamwork and Patient Safety:
Chapter 4. Retrieved 28 January 2013.
16. ^ Donabedian, A (2005). "Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966". The Milbank Quarterly. 83 (4):
691–729. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x. PMC 2690293. PMID 16279964.
17. ^ Sunol, R. (2000). "Avedis Donabedian". International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 12 (6): 451–
454. doi:10.1093/intqhc/12.6.451. PMID 11245100