International Journal for Quality in Health Care最新文献

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.

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.