Reimagining the Humble but Mighty Pen: Quality Measurement and Naturalistic Decision Making

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2018-08-16 DOI:10.1177/1555343418784372
E. Schneider
{"title":"Reimagining the Humble but Mighty Pen: Quality Measurement and Naturalistic Decision Making","authors":"E. Schneider","doi":"10.1177/1555343418784372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much of the health system’s avoidable spending may be driven by doctors’ decision making. Past studies demonstrated potentially consequential and costly inconsistencies between the actual decisions that clinicians make in daily practice and optimal evidence-based decisions. This commentary examines the “best practices regimen” through the lens of the quality measurement movement.  Although quality measures have proliferated via public reporting and pay-for-performance programs, evidence for their impact on quality of care is scant; the cost of care has continued to rise; and the environment for clinical decisions may not have improved. Naturalistic decision making offers a compelling alternative conceptual frame for quality measurement. An alternative quality measurement system could build on insights from naturalistic decision making to optimize doctors’ and patients’ joint decisions, improve patients’ health outcomes, and perhaps slow the growth of health care spending in the future.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":"12 1","pages":"198 - 201"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1555343418784372","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343418784372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Much of the health system’s avoidable spending may be driven by doctors’ decision making. Past studies demonstrated potentially consequential and costly inconsistencies between the actual decisions that clinicians make in daily practice and optimal evidence-based decisions. This commentary examines the “best practices regimen” through the lens of the quality measurement movement.  Although quality measures have proliferated via public reporting and pay-for-performance programs, evidence for their impact on quality of care is scant; the cost of care has continued to rise; and the environment for clinical decisions may not have improved. Naturalistic decision making offers a compelling alternative conceptual frame for quality measurement. An alternative quality measurement system could build on insights from naturalistic decision making to optimize doctors’ and patients’ joint decisions, improve patients’ health outcomes, and perhaps slow the growth of health care spending in the future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新想象谦卑但强大的笔:质量测量和自然决策
卫生系统本可以避免的支出可能很大程度上是由医生的决策推动的。过去的研究表明,临床医生在日常实践中做出的实际决策与最佳循证决策之间存在潜在的后果性和代价高昂的不一致。这篇评论通过质量测量运动的视角审视了“最佳实践方案”。 尽管通过公开报告和绩效付费计划,质量措施激增,但很少有证据表明它们对护理质量的影响;护理费用持续上涨;并且用于临床决策的环境可能没有得到改善。自然主义决策为质量测量提供了一个令人信服的替代概念框架。一种替代的质量测量系统可以建立在自然主义决策的基础上,以优化医生和患者的联合决策,改善患者的健康结果,并可能减缓未来医疗保健支出的增长。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation A Taxonomy for AI Hazard Analysis Understanding Automation Failure Integrating Function Allocation and Operational Event Sequence Diagrams to Support Human-Robot Coordination: Case Study of a Robotic Date Thinning System Adapting Cognitive Task Analysis Methods for Use in a Large Sample Simulation Study of High-Risk Healthcare Events.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1