是什么影响了人们对医疗质量改进计划投资回报概念的看法?制度理论视角

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES International Journal of Health Governance Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1108/ijhg-04-2024-0045
S'thembile Thusini, T. Soukup, Claire Henderson
{"title":"是什么影响了人们对医疗质量改进计划投资回报概念的看法?制度理论视角","authors":"S'thembile Thusini, T. Soukup, Claire Henderson","doi":"10.1108/ijhg-04-2024-0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper aims to highlight the factors influencing the conceptualisation of return on investment (ROI) from healthcare quality improvement (QI) programmes.Design/methodology/approachIn their previous work, the authors found that the concept of ROI from QI is broad and includes numerous internal and external benefits for organisations. In this paper, the authors developed a framework outlining the factors that influence this conceptualisation of QI-ROI from an institutional theory perspective. The framework is based on the synthesis of their serial studies on the determinants of the concept of ROI from QI. The research was performed from 2020–2023 and involved a global multidisciplinary systematic literature review (N = 68), qualitative interviews (N = 16) and a Delphi study (N = 23). The qualitative and Delphi studies were based on the publicly-funded mental healthcare in UK. Participants included board members, clinical and service directors, as well as QI leaders.FindingsThe authors outline a framework of internal and external institutional forces that influence the conceptualisation of ROI from QI programmes in mental healthcare and similar organisations. Based on these factors, the authors state several conjectures. In doing this, the authors highlight the ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding QI-ROI conceptualisation. These challenge leaders to balance various monetary and non-monetary benefits for organisations and health systems. This explains the broadness of the QI-ROI concept.Originality/valueThe authors developed a framework highlighting the forces underpinning the broad, ambiguous and sometimes uncertain nature of the QI-ROI concept. They raise awareness about dilemmas to be confronted in developing or applying any tool to evaluate the value for money of QI programmes. Specifically, the work highlights the limitations of the ROI methodology as a primary tool in the QI context and the need for a more comprehensive tool.","PeriodicalId":42859,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What influences perceptions about the concept of return on investment from healthcare quality improvement programmes? An institutional theory perspective\",\"authors\":\"S'thembile Thusini, T. Soukup, Claire Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijhg-04-2024-0045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis paper aims to highlight the factors influencing the conceptualisation of return on investment (ROI) from healthcare quality improvement (QI) programmes.Design/methodology/approachIn their previous work, the authors found that the concept of ROI from QI is broad and includes numerous internal and external benefits for organisations. In this paper, the authors developed a framework outlining the factors that influence this conceptualisation of QI-ROI from an institutional theory perspective. The framework is based on the synthesis of their serial studies on the determinants of the concept of ROI from QI. The research was performed from 2020–2023 and involved a global multidisciplinary systematic literature review (N = 68), qualitative interviews (N = 16) and a Delphi study (N = 23). The qualitative and Delphi studies were based on the publicly-funded mental healthcare in UK. Participants included board members, clinical and service directors, as well as QI leaders.FindingsThe authors outline a framework of internal and external institutional forces that influence the conceptualisation of ROI from QI programmes in mental healthcare and similar organisations. Based on these factors, the authors state several conjectures. In doing this, the authors highlight the ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding QI-ROI conceptualisation. These challenge leaders to balance various monetary and non-monetary benefits for organisations and health systems. This explains the broadness of the QI-ROI concept.Originality/valueThe authors developed a framework highlighting the forces underpinning the broad, ambiguous and sometimes uncertain nature of the QI-ROI concept. They raise awareness about dilemmas to be confronted in developing or applying any tool to evaluate the value for money of QI programmes. Specifically, the work highlights the limitations of the ROI methodology as a primary tool in the QI context and the need for a more comprehensive tool.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42859,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Governance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhg-04-2024-0045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhg-04-2024-0045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在强调影响医疗质量改进(QI)项目投资回报(ROI)概念化的因素。在之前的工作中,作者发现 QI 投资回报的概念非常广泛,包括组织的众多内部和外部利益。在本文中,作者从制度理论的角度出发,建立了一个框架,概述了影响这种 QI-ROI 概念化的因素。该框架基于作者对 QI 投资回报率概念决定因素的系列研究综述。研究时间为 2020-2023 年,涉及全球多学科系统文献综述(68 篇)、定性访谈(16 篇)和德尔菲研究(23 篇)。定性研究和德尔菲研究以英国公共资助的精神医疗保健为基础。研究结果作者概述了影响精神卫生保健和类似组织中 QI 项目投资回报概念化的内部和外部机构力量框架。基于这些因素,作者提出了若干猜想。在此过程中,作者强调了围绕 QI-ROI 概念化的模糊性和不确定性。这些都对领导者平衡组织和医疗系统的各种货币和非货币利益提出了挑战。这就解释了 QI-ROI 概念的广泛性。原创性/价值作者制定了一个框架,强调了支撑 QI-ROI 概念广泛、模糊和有时不确定性质的各种力量。他们提高了人们对开发或应用任何工具来评估 QI 计划资金效益时所面临的困境的认识。具体来说,这项工作强调了投资回报率方法作为质量改进背景下的主要工具所具有的局限性,以及需要一种更全面的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What influences perceptions about the concept of return on investment from healthcare quality improvement programmes? An institutional theory perspective
PurposeThis paper aims to highlight the factors influencing the conceptualisation of return on investment (ROI) from healthcare quality improvement (QI) programmes.Design/methodology/approachIn their previous work, the authors found that the concept of ROI from QI is broad and includes numerous internal and external benefits for organisations. In this paper, the authors developed a framework outlining the factors that influence this conceptualisation of QI-ROI from an institutional theory perspective. The framework is based on the synthesis of their serial studies on the determinants of the concept of ROI from QI. The research was performed from 2020–2023 and involved a global multidisciplinary systematic literature review (N = 68), qualitative interviews (N = 16) and a Delphi study (N = 23). The qualitative and Delphi studies were based on the publicly-funded mental healthcare in UK. Participants included board members, clinical and service directors, as well as QI leaders.FindingsThe authors outline a framework of internal and external institutional forces that influence the conceptualisation of ROI from QI programmes in mental healthcare and similar organisations. Based on these factors, the authors state several conjectures. In doing this, the authors highlight the ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding QI-ROI conceptualisation. These challenge leaders to balance various monetary and non-monetary benefits for organisations and health systems. This explains the broadness of the QI-ROI concept.Originality/valueThe authors developed a framework highlighting the forces underpinning the broad, ambiguous and sometimes uncertain nature of the QI-ROI concept. They raise awareness about dilemmas to be confronted in developing or applying any tool to evaluate the value for money of QI programmes. Specifically, the work highlights the limitations of the ROI methodology as a primary tool in the QI context and the need for a more comprehensive tool.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Governance
International Journal of Health Governance HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Governance (IJHG) is oriented to serve those at the policy and governance levels within government, healthcare systems or healthcare organizations. It bridges the academic, public and private sectors, presenting case studies, research papers, reviews and viewpoints to provide an understanding of health governance that is both practical and actionable for practitioners, managers and policy makers. Policy and governance to promote, maintain or restore health extends beyond the clinical care aspect alone.
期刊最新文献
What influences perceptions about the concept of return on investment from healthcare quality improvement programmes? An institutional theory perspective What influences perceptions about the concept of return on investment from healthcare quality improvement programmes? An institutional theory perspective Doctors only blame the patients: a systems analysis of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) Exploring the quality of life of palliative care patients: empirical evidence from India The role of governance in mitigating an epidemic disease: evidence from HIV prevalence in 45 Sub-Saharan African countries, 1996–2019
×
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