The Case for Quality Improvement

Krause, Christina M.

doi:10.12927/hcq.2017.25138

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, continuity, availability, patient involvement and satisfaction with care are less than optimal 3,4 . According to some, the healthcare system needs to decrease costs and improve care quality 5 . Different solutions have been proposed to acknowledge the patient in health care, including patient‐centred and person‐centred care (PCC) initiatives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A national research centre for the evaluation and implementation of person‐centred care: Content from the first interventional studies

Gyllensten

Björkman

Ung

et al. 2020

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Person‐centred care (PCC) has been suggested as a potential means to improve the care of patients with chronic and long‐term disorders. In this regard, a model for PCC was developed by the University of Gothenburg Centre for Person‐Centred Care (GPCC). Objective The present study aimed to explore the theoretical frameworks, designs, contexts and intervention characteristics in the first 27 interventional studies conducted based on the ethics for person‐centredness provided by the GPCC. Design Cross‐sectional study. Setting and participants A questionnaire to the principal investigators of the 27 intervention studies financed by the GPCC and conducted between 2010 and 2016. Main outcome measures Theoretical frameworks, contexts of studies, person‐centred ethic, and outcome measures. Results Most of the interventions were based on the same ethical assumptions for person‐centredness but theories and models in applying the interventions differed. All studies were controlled; 12 randomized and 15 quasi‐experimental. Hospital in‐ and outpatient and primary care settings were represented and the outcome measures were related to the specific theories used. A complexity in designing, introducing and evaluating PCC interventions was evident. Conclusion The frameworks, designs and interventions in the studies were in line with the established ethical basis of PCC, whereas outcome measures varied widely. Consensus discussions among researchers in the field are needed to make comparisons between studies feasible. Patient or public contributions Patients or the public made no direct contributions, although most of the studied projects included such initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A national research centre for the evaluation and implementation of person‐centred care: Content from the first interventional studies

Gyllensten

Björkman

Ung

et al. 2020

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We delve further into the topic of patient engagement and co-design, with the invited commentary from Kuluski et al (2024). Their commentary highlights the value of the work done by Hahn-Goldberg et al ( 2024), but it also reminds us that patient engagement is not easy and there are many significant, and sometimes fundamental, contextual challenges that must be addressed to realize the full potential of patient engagement initiatives.…”

Section: Co-designing Care With Patientsmentioning

confidence: 95%

From the Editors

Wojtak,

Stuart

2024

hcq

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the Editors I t will take years before we can understand and measure the full toll that the COVID-19 pandemic has taken on our health systems. Of the many reverberations from the pandemic, one of the most concerning implications is an increase in the rates of preventable harm. Four years of unprecedented demand on healthcare services combined with health human resource shortages and clinician burnout have pushed our systems to the brink -and are impacting our capacity to improve or even maintain standards of care.This edition of Healthcare Quarterly highlights concerns related to patient safety and harm and introduces a focus on organizations that are defying the odds. This year, we intend to draw greater attention to this topic and include examples of organizations that have built resiliency into patient safety systems and/or are taking steps to get back on track with improvement goals. We are pleased to be able to share insights from Ross Baker, one of Canada's pre-eminent experts on the topic of patient safety, who is contributing thought leadership to the current state of patient safety and discusses why we need to be paying attention (Baker 2024). Baker's (2024) special commentary provides additional insight into the article by Harvey et al. ( 2024) on building a resilient patient safety culture in a large multi-site hospital, as well as a recent analysis from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) that explores the correlation between hospital staffing issues and patient harm during the pandemic. This commentary replaces our regular featured column on Quality 2.0 from Leslee Thompson. Thompson's column will return in our next edition (see Thompson 2023Thompson , 2024.In addition to our focus on patient safety and harm, the articles include a primer on artificial intelligence (AI) for leaders, as well as an overview of emerging leadership models. We also highlight a case study on the benefits of engaging patients in improving transitions from hospital, complemented by an invited essay on the future of co-design with patients and caregivers from the perspectives of three researchers working with Ontario Health Teams (OHTs). We conclude with our regular featured columns from our colleague Neil Seeman as well as those from ICES and CIHI (Campbell et al. 2024;Seeman 2024;St. Cyr and Mahar 2024).We would like to thank the authors who have contributed abstracts on mental health and substance use disorder related to our recent call for papers on this topic. We are working with Ruby Brown, our special guest co-editor, to start publishing examples of teams from across Canada that are doing exemplary work in this important area. Stay tuned as we work with the authors to finalize these articles for publishing in upcoming editions.

show abstract

“…Healthcare systems need to be re-organized to provide high-quality care without increased costs to an ageing population with a high prevalence of chronic and longterm disorders [1,2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Person-Centred Care, Theory, Operationalisation and Effects

Ekman

Swedberg

2022

Intelligent Systems for Sustainable Person-Centered Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In healthcare systems patient engagement and care satisfaction are less than optimal. Different solutions have been proposed to recognise the patient in health care, including person-centred care. The University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC) steering committee formulated three ‘simple routines’ to initiate, integrate and safeguard person-centred care in daily clinical practice. These routines are: the patient narrative followed by an agreed health plan which is then safeguarded by documentation. Health care professionals need to know how health processes are strengthened in a relationship where patients are accepted as persons with their own will and emotions and in which individual responsibilities and capabilities are highlighted. A person-centred perspective uses ethics as a springboard. Such an ethical view can briefly be formulated by: “To aim for the good life, with and for others in just institutions”. When the starting point is ethics and each person is understood as a unique individual, care actions will never be the same for each patient. By asking for the patients’ understanding of the condition and treatment relative to their lives in general, professionals can understand what health, illness, treatment and care convey to patients and their relatives. The patient narratives are obviously very important in formulating the health plan. Controlled studies have found several benefits from implementing person-centred practices, including improved quality of life, maintained self-efficacy and reduced health costs.

show abstract

The Case for Quality Improvement

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

A national research centre for the evaluation and implementation of person‐centred care: Content from the first interventional studies

A national research centre for the evaluation and implementation of person‐centred care: Content from the first interventional studies

From the Editors

Person-Centred Care, Theory, Operationalisation and Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About