International Journal for Quality in Health Care最新文献

Person-centered primary care measures (PCPCM) facilitate high-quality and culturally appropriate primary care. Access to PCPCM remains unequal between rural and urban areas, and the available evidence on rural PCPCM is still lacking. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with stratified sampling by regions, and four districts (Xicheng, Fengtai, Huairou, and Daxing) in Beijing were selected to test the performance of PCPCM in both urban and rural areas. Descriptive statistical methods were used to compare the urban-rural differences in the demographic characteristics of PCPCM. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to determine the associations between PCPCM in demographics and utilization of primary care. The PCPCM showed good reliability and validity in both urban and rural areas (P < .001), slightly lower in rural areas, but scores of rural PCPCM (R-PCPCM) in all items were lower than urban PCPCM (U-PCPCM). Patients in either the preferred urban or rural health centers all showed the highest PCPCM scores, with U-PCPCM= 3.31 for CHCs and R-PCPCM= 3.10 for RHCs, respectively. Patients in urban areas were more likely to receive higher-quality primary care than in rural areas (P < .001). Patients who preferred hospitals (β = 2.61, P < .001) or CHCs (β = 0.71, P = .003) as providers was a significant positive predictor of U-PCPCM but it was the preference for hospitals (β = 2.95, P < .001) for R-PCPCM. Urban-rural differences existed in the performance of PCPCM, with rural areas typically more difficult to access better PCPCM. To promote health equity in rural areas, healthcare providers should strive to minimize urban-rural differences in the quality and utilization of primary care services as much as feasible.

Although formal preparedness for unexpected crises has long been a concern of health care policy and delivery, many hospitals struggled to manage staff and equipment shortages, precarious finances, and supply chain disruptions among other difficulties during the Coronavirus disease pandemic. Our purpose was to analyze how hospitals used formal and informal emergency management practices to maintain safe and high-quality care while responding to crisis. We conducted a qualitative study based on 26 interviews with hospital leaders and emergency managers from 12 US hospitals, purposively sampled to vary along geographic location, urban/rural delineation, size, resource availability, system membership, teaching status, and performance levels among other characteristics. In order to manage staff, space, supplies, and system- related challenges, hospitals engaged formal and informal practices around planning, teaming, and exchanging resources and information. Relying solely only on formal or informal practices proved inadequate, especially when prespecified plans, the incident command structure, and existing contracts and communication platforms failed to support resilient response. We identified emergent capabilities-imaginative planning, recombinant teaming, and transformational exchange-through which hospitals achieved harmonious interplay between the formal and informal practices of emergency management that supported safe care and resilience amid crisis. Managing emergent challenges for and amid crisis calls for health care delivery organizations to engage creative planning processes, enable motivated workers with diverse skill sets to team up, and establish rich inter- and intra-organizational partnerships that support vital exchange.

As technology continues to advance, it is important to understand how website-based tools can support quality improvement. Website-based tools refer to resources such as toolkits that users can access and use autonomously through a dedicated website. This review examined how website-based tools can support healthcare professionals with quality improvement, including the optimal processes used to develop tools and the elements of an effective tool. A systematic search of seven databases was conducted to include articles published between January 2012 and January 2024. Articles were included if they were peer reviewed, written in English, based in health settings, and reported the development or evaluation of a quality improvement website-based tool for professionals. A narrative synthesis was conducted using NVivo. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. All papers were independently screened and coded by two authors using a six-phase conceptual framework by Braun and Clarke. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Themes identified were tool development processes, quality improvement mechanisms and barriers and facilitators to tool usage. Digitalizing existing quality improvement processes (n = 7), identifying gaps in practice (n = 6), and contributing to professional development (n = 3) were common quality improvement aims. Tools were associated with the reported enhancement of accuracy and efficiency in clinical tasks, improvement in adherence to guidelines, facilitation of reflective practice, and provision of tailored feedback for continuous quality improvement. Common features were educational resources (n = 7) and assisting the user to assess current practices against standards/recommendations (n = 6), which supported professionals in achieving better clinical outcomes, increased professional satisfaction and streamlined workflow in various settings. Studies reported facilitators to tool usage including relevance to practice, accessibility, and facilitating multidisciplinary action, making these tools practical and time-efficient for healthcare. However, barriers such as being time consuming, irrelevant to practice, difficult to use, and lack of organizational engagement were reported. Almost all tools were co-developed with stakeholders. The co-design approaches varied, reflecting different levels of stakeholder engagement and adoption of co-design methodologies. It is noted that the quality of included studies was low. These findings offer valuable insights for future development of quality improvement website-based tools in healthcare. Recommendations include ensuring tools are co-developed with healthcare professionals, focusing on practical usability and addressing common barriers to enhance engagement and effectiveness in improving healthcare quality. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to provide objective evidence of tool efficacy.

Shortening the prehospital emergency medical service (EMS) response time is crucial for saving lives and lowering mortality and disability rates in patients with sudden illnesses. Descriptive analyses of prehospital EMS response time and each component were conducted separately using ambulance trip data from the 120 Dispatch Command Centre in the main urban area of Chongqing in 2021, and then, logistic regression analyses were used to explore the influencing factors. The median prehospital EMS response time in the main urban area of Chongqing was 14.52 min and the mean was 16.14 min. A 44.89% of prehospital EMS response time exceeded 15 min. Response time was more likely to surpass this threshold during peak hours and in high population density areas. Conversely, lower probabilities exceeding 15 min were observed during the night shift, summer, and autumn seasons, and areas with a high density of emergency station. 33.28% of preparation time was >3 min, with the night shift and high population density areas more likely to be >3 min, while for the summer and autumn seasons, high Gross National Product (GDP) per capita areas had a lower likelihood of having preparation time >3 min. 45.52% of travel time was >11 min, with peak hours, summer and autumn, and high GDP per capita areas more likely to have had a travel time >11 min, while night shift and high emergency station density areas had a lower likelihood of travel time >11 min. The primary factors influencing prehospital EMS response time were shifts, traffic scenarios, seasons, GDP per capita, emergency station density, and population density. Relevant departments can devise effective interventions to reduce response time through resource allocation and department coordination, staff training and work arrangement optimisation, as well as public participation and education, thereby enhancing the efficiency of prehospital emergency medical services.

Ensuring quality in healthcare calls for a coordinated, systematic, congruous, and sustained approach. Nevertheless, it demands defining what the quality of healthcare means in the local context. Presently, the Malaysian healthcare system utilizes various definitions of quality of healthcare across the different initiatives and levels of healthcare, which can lead to fragmented or ineffective quality improvement. The study aims to describe the process undertaken in developing an explicit definition of the quality of healthcare tailored to the Malaysian context, which is currently lacking. A pluralistic method was used to explore the different perspectives. Three distinct approaches were used to understand how quality is defined among the different stakeholder groups: (i) interactive policy-makers engagement sessions, (ii) a review of local quality-related documents, and (iii) an online survey engaging the public. The domains depicting quality of healthcare that emerged through these three approaches were mapped against a framework and synthesized to form the local definition of quality. A national quality-related technical working group convened on several sessions to achieve consensus and finalize the definition of quality of healthcare. Quality healthcare in Malaysia is defined as providing high-quality healthcare that is safe, timely, effective, equitable, efficient, people-centred, and accessible [STEEEPA] which is innovative and responsive to the needs of the people, and is delivered as a team, in a caring and professional manner in order to improve health outcomes and client experience. The consensus-driven local definition of healthcare quality will guide policies and ensure standardization in measuring quality, thereby steering efforts to improve the quality of healthcare services delivered in Malaysia.