HEALTHCARE DELIVERY
Exploring the quality challenges
At the 2011 King’s Fund Annual Conference, which took place in November, a keynote panel session focused on quality challenges, and how quality can be improved in the health system. The panel discussed the barriers to, and facilitators of, high-quality, patient-centred care.
Chairing the panel discussion, Nigel Edwards, senior fellow at the King’s Fund, opened the debate by referring to the series of “disturbing” reports about healthcare quality that have been published in recent months. He believes that another search for the correct model of regulation is now well underway, referring to the number of enquiries currently in progress which focus on the search for quality. He said: “There have been three reviews of regulations over the past 12 years with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) currently undertaking a further examination. The QIPP challenge is also an important part of the search for quality.” However, he went to voice his concern about the evidence for high- quality care always being cheaper. “It is sometimes easier to make efficiency savings which do not positively affect quality, or might even endanger it.” He made it clear that the pressure to make efficiency savings should never be at the expense of quality of care or safety. There can be no doubting the evidence
relating to the quality issues in healthcare, or significant regional variations between quality and outcomes, which are hard to justify, and are a big concern. These concerns are set against a growing pressure for transparency through the publication of information. “This trend is unlikely to be reversed,” said Mr Edwards. “Indeed, it is likely to become more intense.” He believes that there will be less tolerance of poor quality and the high levels of variation in the future, and believes that policymakers will start to impose payment systems and regulatory mechanisms to mirror this increasing intolerance.
22 THE CLINICAL SERVICES JOURNAL
Barriers and facilitators Professor Albert Mulley, director of the Dartmouth Centre for Health Care Delivery Science, continued the debate by focusing on the barriers to, and facilitators of, high-quality patient care. He said: “Currently, the most important barrier to achieving both quality and patient centredness, as well as efficiency, is the failure to acknowledge the complexity of medical care.We want to believe that, if we deliver a particular intervention, it will achieve a particular result and that this result will be valued by those who receive the intervention. In reality, as clinicians know, there is a great deal of uncertainty between the intervention and the result.
“Patients also disagree
about the value of particular results. Interventions demand a trade-off between different domains of health, or physical function. Each patient will be willing to make different trade-offs.”
It is this complexity, said Prof. Mulley,
that leads to the phenomena of practice variation. In his view, this variation can provide a good resource for learning, however. “If all practice variation were bad, then it would be an easy problem to solve,” he said. “It is a bigger challenge to sort out the bad variation which reflects poor knowledge management or uncertainty that does not need to exist when decisions are being made, from the good variation which often reflects the different trade-offs that the patient is willing to make. “It is not always possible to define
processes that will deliver quality and patient-centredness and there is a worry that, when such measures are over- specified, it results in a box-ticking response on the part of physicians which can drive out the intrinsic motivation to achieve quality and to recognise the uniqueness of each patient. “We need to look more deeply at the
‘The pressure to make efficiency savings should never be at the expense of
quality of care or safety.’ Nigel Edwards.
issues and create measures for quality improvement in transformative ways. Such measures should be more aligned with the forces of intrinsic motivation and more consistent with the values of the profession. They should include knowledge sharing – among clinical team members, and between the patients and communities that have to live with the consequences of the care that is delivered. We also need to measure the quality of clinical decisions – is the patient well informed? Does the care provided match what the patient cares about in life?” Concluding, Prof. Mulley reiterated
what he believes is the principal facilitator for improved quality: “It revolves around a willingness to question assumptions,
MARCH 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60