International Journal for Quality in Health Care最新文献

Urban-rural disparities in medical care, including in home healthcare, persist globally. With aging populations and medical advancements, demand for home health services rises, warranting investigation into home healthcare disparities. Our study aimed to (i) investigate the impact of rurality on home healthcare quality, and (ii) assess the temporal disparities and the changes in disparities in home healthcare quality between urban and rural home health agencies (HHAs), incorporating an analysis of geospatial distribution to visualize the underlying patterns. This study analyzed data from HHAs listed on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website, covering the period from 2010 to 2022. Data were classified into urban and rural categories for each HHA. We employed panel data analysis to examine the impact of rurality on home healthcare quality, specifically focusing on hospital admission and emergency room (ER) visit rates. Disparities between urban and rural HHAs were assessed using the Wilcoxon test, with results visualized through line and dot plots and heat maps to illustrate trends and differences comprehensively. Rurality is demonstrated as the most significant variable in hospital admission and ER visit rates in the panel data analysis. Urban HHAs consistently exhibit significantly lower hospital admission rates and ER visit rates compared to rural HHAs from 2010 to 2022. Longitudinally, the gap in hospital admission rates between urban and rural HHAs is shrinking, while there is an increasing gap in ER visit rates. In 2022, HHAs in Mountain areas, which are characterized by a higher proportion of rural regions, exhibited higher hospital admission and ER visit rates than other areas. This study underscores the persistent urban-rural disparities in home healthcare quality. The analysis emphasizes the ongoing need for targeted interventions to address disparities in home healthcare delivery and ensure equitable access to quality care across urban and rural regions. Our findings have the potential to inform policy and practice, promoting equity and efficiency in the long-term care system, for better health outcomes throughout the USA.

Knowing the prevalence of potentially avoidable hospitalizations (PAHs) and the factors associated with them is essential if preventive action is to be taken. Studies on PAHs mainly concern adults, and very few have been carried out in South America. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study on PAHs in French Guiana, particularly among older adults. This case-control study aimed to estimate the prevalence of PAHs in the Guianese population aged over 65 and to analyze their associated factors. We used the 2017-2019 data from the French National Health Service database (Système National des Données de Santé). The patients were age- and sex-matched 1 : 3 with controls without any PAH in 2019. Factors associated with PAHs were investigated through two conditional logistic regression models [one including the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and one including each comorbidity of the CCI], with calculation of the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The PAH incidence was 17.4 per 1000 inhabitants. PAHs represented 6.6% of all hospitalizations (45.6% related to congestive heart failure or hypertension). A higher CCI was associated with PAHs [aOR 2.2 (95% CI: 1.6, 3.0) and aOR 4.8 (95% CI: 2.4, 9.9) for 1-2 and ≥3 comorbidities, respectively, versus 0], as was immigrant health insurance status [aOR 2.3 (95% CI: 1.3, 4.2)]. Connective tissue disease, chronic pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease were comorbidities associated with an increased risk of PAHs. While the prevention of PAHs among immigrants is probably beyond the reach of the Guianese authorities, primary care and a public health policy geared toward prevention should be put in place for the French Guianese population suffering from cardiovascular disease in order to reduce PAHs.

Clinical indicators are increasingly used to improve the quality of care, particularly with the emergence of 'big data', but physicians' views regarding their utility in practice is unclear. We reviewed the published literature investigating physicians' perspectives, focusing on the following objectives in relation to quality improvement: (1) the role of clinical indicators, (2) what is needed to strengthen them, (3) their key attributes, and (4) the best tool(s) for assessing their quality. A systematic literature search (up to November 2022) was carried out using: Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles that met all of the following inclusion criteria were included: reported on physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators and/or tools for assessing the quality of clinical indicators, addressing at least one of the four review objectives; the clinical indicators related to care at least partially delivered by physicians; and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Data extracted from eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. A thematic synthesis of data was conducted using NVivo software. Descriptive themes were inductively derived from codes, which were grouped into analytical themes answering each objective. A total of 14 studies were included, with 17 analytical themes identified for objectives 1-3 and no data identified for objective 4. Results showed that indicators can play an important motivating role for physicians to improve the quality of care and show where changes need to be made. For indicators to be effective, physicians should be involved in indicator development, recording relevant data should be straightforward, indicator feedback must be meaningful to physicians, and clinical teams need to be adequately resourced to act on findings. Effective indicators need to focus on the most important areas for quality improvement, be consistent with good medical care, and measure aspects of care within the control of physicians. Studies cautioned against using indicators primarily as punitive measures, and there were concerns that an overreliance on indicators can lead to narrowed perspective of quality of care. This review identifies facilitators and barriers to meaningfully engaging physicians in developing and using clinical indicators to improve the quality of healthcare.

Quality criteria and certification possibilities for paediatric oncology centres vary between countries and are not widely used. An overview of the type and how quality criteria and certifications are used in countries with highly developed healthcare systems is missing. This international cross-sectional survey investigated the use of quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres and whether certification is possible. We sent an online survey to paediatric oncologists from 32 countries worldwide and analysed the survey results and provided regional or national documents on quality criteria and certification possibilities descriptively. Paediatric oncologists from 28 (88%) countries replied. In most countries, the paediatric oncology centres were partly or completely grown historically (75%), followed by the development based on predefined criteria (29%), and due to political reason (25%), with more than one reason in some countries. Quality criteria are available in 20 countries (71%). We newly identified or specified five quality criteria, in addition to those from a previously performed systematic review. Certification of paediatric oncology centres is possible in 13 countries (46%), with a specific certification for paediatric oncology in seven, and a mandatory certification in three of them. The use of quality criteria and certification possibilities are heterogeneous, with quality criteria being more frequently used than certifications. Our study provides an overview of country-specific documents and links with quality criteria, and centre certification possibilities. It can serve as a reference document for stakeholders and may inform an international harmonization of quality criteria and centre certification between countries with similar healthcare systems.

Person-centred care (PCC) is associated with improved patient well-being and higher levels of satisfaction with care but its impact on individuals living with obesity is not well-established. The main aim of this study was to assess the relationship between PCC and the physical and social well-being of patients living with obesity, as well as their satisfaction with care. This study is based on a cross-sectional, web-based survey administered among a representative panel of Dutch individuals living with obesity. The primary outcomes were physical and social well-being and satisfaction with care. The primary exposure was a rating of overall PCC, encompassing its eight dimensions. In addition, covariates considered in the analyses included sex, age, marital status, education level, body mass index, and chronic illness. The data from a total of 590 participants were analysed using descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and multiple regression analyses. Among PCC dimensions, participants rated 'access to care' the highest (M 4.1, SD 0.6), while 'coordination of care' (M 3.5, SD 0.8) was rated lower than all other dimensions. Participants' overall PCC ratings were positively correlated with their physical (r = 0.255, P < .001) and social well-being (r = 0.289, P < .001) and their satisfaction with care (r = 0.788, P < .001), as were the separate dimension scores. After controlling for sex, age, marital status, education level, body mass index, and chronic illness in the regression analyses, participants' overall PCC ratings were positively related to their physical (β = 0.24, P < .001) and social well-being (β = 0.26, P < .001), and satisfaction with care (β = 0.79, P < .001). PCC holds promise for improved outcomes among patients living with obesity, both in terms of physical and social well-being, as well as satisfaction with care. This is an important finding, particularly when considering the profound physical, social, and psychological consequences associated with obesity. In addition to highlighting the potential benefits of PCC in the healthcare of individuals living with obesity, the findings offer valuable insights into strategies for further refining the provision of PCC to meet the specific needs of these patients.

Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in interest in the nature and extent of co-production in the health and social care sectors. Due to the proliferation of work on co-production, there is variation in practice in how co-production is defined, understood, and used in practice. We conducted a narrative review to explore, and provide an overview of, which models of health and social care co-production have been developed, applied, and critiqued over recent decades. Seventy-three peer-reviewed articles met our inclusion criteria. In this set of articles, we identified three broad types of models: conceptual/theoretical, practice-oriented, and presenting a typology. We found that practice-oriented models, predominantly from the Health Services Research and Quality Improvement literature, had largely not drawn on conceptual/theoretical models from the disciplinary fields of Public Administration & Management and Sociology. In particular, they have largely neglected theoretical perspectives on relationships and power and agency in co-production work. The concepts of Service-Dominant Logic and Public Service-Dominant Logic as ways to think about the joint, collaborative process of producing new value, particularly in the context of the use of a service, have also been neglected. Our review has identified distinct literatures which have contributed a variety of models of health and social care co-production. Our findings highlight under-explored dimensions of co-production that merit greater attention in the health and social care contexts. The overview of models of co-production we provide aims to offer a useful platform for the integration of different perspectives on co-production in future research and practice in health and social care.

In the medical field, the importance of online reviews is escalating. However, the complexity of responding to these reviews is profound, as such anonymous critiques may encompass not only emotionally distressing content but also potentially malicious criticisms directed at healthcare professionals. While recognizing the vital role of patient feedback, there exists a necessity for a collective approach to managing online commentary. This effort seeks to strike a balance between patient satisfaction and the safeguarding of healthcare practitioners and administrative staff. We believe the global medical community must establish guidelines to effectively handle such scenarios, thereby contributing to the sustainability of patient-centered services.