Donabedian model

Last updated

The Donabedian model is a conceptual model that provides a framework for examining health services and evaluating quality of health care. [1] According to the model, information about quality of care can be drawn from three categories: "structure", "process", and "outcomes". [2] Structure describes the context in which care is delivered, including hospital buildings, staff, financing, and equipment. Process denotes the transactions between patients and providers throughout the delivery of healthcare. Finally, outcomes refer to the effects of healthcare on the health status of patients and populations. [2] Avedis Donabedian, a physician and health services researcher at the University of Michigan, developed the original model in 1966. [3] While there are other quality of care frameworks, including the World Health Organization (WHO)-Recommended Quality of Care Framework and the Bamako Initiative, the Donabedian model continues to be the dominant paradigm for assessing the quality of health care. [4]

Contents

Dimensions of care

The model is most often represented by a chain of three boxes containing structure, process, and outcome connected by unidirectional arrows in that order. These boxes represent three types of information that may be collected in order to draw inferences about quality of care in a given system. [5]

Structure

Structure includes all of the factors that affect the context in which care is delivered. This includes the physical facility, equipment, and human resources, as well as organizational characteristics such as staff training and payment methods. These factors control how providers and patients in a healthcare system act and are measures of the average quality of care within a facility or system. Structure is often easy to observe and measure and it may be the upstream cause of problems identified in process. [5]

Process

Process is the sum of all actions that make up healthcare. These commonly include diagnosis, treatment, preventive care, and patient education but may be expanded to include actions taken by the patients or their families. Processes can be further classified as technical processes, how care is delivered, or interpersonal processes, which all encompass the manner in which care is delivered. [6] According to Donabedian, the measurement of process is nearly equivalent to the measurement of quality of care because process contains all acts of healthcare delivery. [5] Information about process can be obtained from medical records, interviews with patients and practitioners, or direct observations of healthcare visits.

Outcome

Outcome contains all the effects of healthcare on patients or populations, including changes to health status, behavior, or knowledge as well as patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life. Outcomes are sometimes seen as the most important indicators of quality because improving patient health status is the primary goal of healthcare. However, accurately measuring outcomes that can be attributed exclusively to healthcare is very difficult. [6] Drawing connections between process and outcomes often requires large sample populations, adjustments by case mix, and long-term follow ups as outcomes may take considerable time to become observable. [5]

Although it is widely recognized and applied in many health care related fields, the Donabedian Model was developed to assess quality of care in clinical practice. [7] The model does not have an implicit definition of quality care so that it can be applied to problems of broad or narrow scope. [6] Donabedian notes that each of the three domains has advantages and disadvantages that necessitate researchers to draw connections between them in order to create a chain of causation that is conceptually useful for understanding systems as well as designing experiments and interventions. [5]

Applications

Donabedian developed his quality of care framework to be flexible enough for application in diverse healthcare settings and among various levels within a delivery system.

At its most basic level, the framework can be used to modify structures and processes within a healthcare delivery unit, such as a small group practice or ambulatory care center, to improve patient flow or information exchange. For instance, health administrators in a small physician practice may be interested in improving their treatment coordination process through enhanced communication of lab results from laboratorian to provider in an effort to streamline patient care. The process for information exchange, in this case the transfer of lab results to the attending physician, depends on the structure for receiving and interpreting results. The structure could involve an electronic health record (EHR) that a laboratorian fills out with lab results for use by the physician to complete a diagnosis. To improve this process, a healthcare administrator may look at the structure and decide to purchase an information technology (IT) solution of pop-up alerts for actionable lab results to incorporate into the EHR. The process could be modified through a change in standard protocol of determining how and when an alert is released and who is responsible for each step in the process. The outcomes to evaluate the efficacy of this quality improvement (QI) solution might include patient satisfaction, timeliness of diagnosis, or clinical outcomes. [8]

In addition to examining quality within a healthcare delivery unit, the Donabedian model is applicable to the structure and process for treating certain diseases and conditions with the aim to improve the quality of chronic disease management. For example, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a condition with significant morbidity and mortality and substantial disparities in outcomes among rheumatic diseases. The propensity for SLE care to be fragmented and poorly coordinated, as well as evidence that healthcare system factors associated with improved SLE outcomes are modifiable, points to an opportunity for process improvement through changes in preventive care, monitoring, and effective self-care. A researcher may develop evidence within these areas to analyze the relationship between structure and process to outcomes in SLE care for the purposes of finding solutions to improve outcomes. An analysis of SLE care structure may reveal an association between access to care and financing to quality outcomes. An analysis of process may look at hospital and physician specialty in SLE care and how it relates to SLE mortality in hospitals, or the effect on outcomes by including additional QI indicators to the diagnosis and treatment of SLE. To assess these changes in structure and process, evidence garnered from changes in mortality, disease damage, and health-related quality of life would be used to validate structure-process changes. [9]

Donabedian’s model can also be applied to a large health system to measure overall quality and align improvement work across a hospital, group practice or the large integrated health system to improve quality and outcomes for a population. In 2007, the US Institute for Healthcare Improvement proposed “whole system measures” that address structure, process, and outcomes of care. [10] These indicators supply health care leaders with data to evaluate the organization’s performance in order to design strategic QI planning. The indicators are limited to 13 non-disease specific measures that provide system-level indications of quality, applicable to both inpatient and outpatient settings and across the continuum of care. In addition to informing the QI plan, these measures can be used to evaluate the quality of the system’s care over time, how it performs relative to stated strategic planning goals, and how it performs compared to similar organizations. [11]

Criticisms and adaptations

While the Donabedian model continues to serve as a touchstone framework in health services research, potential limitations have been suggested by other researchers, and, in some cases, adaptations of the model have been proposed. The sequential progression from structure to process to outcome has been described by some as too linear of a framework, [12] and consequently has a limited utility for recognizing how the three domains influence and interact with each other. [13] The model has also been criticized for failing to incorporate antecedent characteristics (e.g. patient characteristics, environmental factors) which are important precursors to evaluating quality care. [14] Coyle and Battles suggest that these factors are vital to fully understanding the true effectiveness of new strategies or modifications within the care process. [15] According to Coyle and Battles, patient factors include genetics, socio-demographics, health habits, beliefs and attitudes, and preferences. [15] Environmental factors include the patients' cultural, social, political, personal, and physical characteristics, as well as factors related to the health profession itself. [15]

History

Avedis Donabedian first described the three elements of the Donabedian Model in his 1966 article, “Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care.” As a preface to his analysis of methodologies used in health services research, Donabedian identified the three dimensions that can be utilized to assess quality of care (structure, process, and outcome) that would later become the core divisions of the Donabedian Model. [16] “Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care” became one of the most frequently cited public health-related articles of the 20th century, and the Donabedian Model gained widespread acceptance. [17]

In 1980, Donabedian published The Definition of Quality and Approaches to its Assessment, vol. 1: Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring, which provided a more in-depth description of the structure—process– outcome paradigm. In his book, Donabedian once again defines structure, process, and outcome, and clarifies that these categories should not be mistaken for attributes of quality, but rather they are the classifications for the types of information that can be obtained in order to infer whether the quality of care is poor, fair, or good. [5] Furthermore, he states that in order to make inferences about quality, there needs to be an established relationship between the three categories and that this relationship between categories is a probability rather than a certainty.

Related Research Articles

Health care reform is for the most part governmental policy that affects health care delivery in a given place. Health care reform typically attempts to:

A health system, health care system or healthcare system is an organization of people, institutions, and resources that delivers health care services to meet the health needs of target populations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health care</span> Prevention of disease and promotion of well-being

Health care, or healthcare, is the improvement of health via the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, amelioration or cure of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in people. Health care is delivered by health professionals and allied health fields. Medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, midwifery, nursing, optometry, audiology, psychology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, athletic training, and other health professions all constitute health care. The term includes work done in providing primary care, secondary care, tertiary care, and public health.

Clinical governance is a systematic approach to maintaining and improving the quality of patient care within the National Health Service (NHS) and private sector health care. Clinical governance became important in health care after the Bristol heart scandal in 1995, during which an anaesthetist, Dr Stephen Bolsin, exposed the high mortality rate for paediatric cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. It was originally elaborated within the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS), and its most widely cited formal definition describes it as:

A framework through which NHS organisations are accountable for continually improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care will flourish.

Clinical audit is a process that has been defined as a quality improvement process that seeks to improve patient care and outcomes through systematic review of care against explicit criteria and the implementation of change

In the healthcare industry, pay for performance (P4P), also known as "value-based purchasing", is a payment model that offers financial incentives to physicians, hospitals, medical groups, and other healthcare providers for meeting certain performance measures. Clinical outcomes, such as longer survival, are difficult to measure, so pay for performance systems usually evaluate process quality and efficiency, such as measuring blood pressure, lowering blood pressure, or counseling patients to stop smoking. This model also penalizes health care providers for poor outcomes, medical errors, or increased costs. Integrated delivery systems where insurers and providers share in the cost are intended to help align incentives for value-based care.

Health services research (HSR) became a burgeoning field in North America in the 1960s, when scientific information and policy deliberation began to coalesce. Sometimes also referred to as health systems research or health policy and systems research (HPSR), HSR is a multidisciplinary scientific field that examines how people get access to health care practitioners and health care services, how much care costs, and what happens to patients as a result of this care. HSR utilizes all qualitative and quantitative methods across the board to ask questions of the healthcare system. It focuses on performance, quality, effectiveness and efficiency of health care services as they relate to health problems of individuals and populations, as well as health care systems and addresses wide-ranging topics of structure, processes, and organization of health care services; their use and people's access to services; efficiency and effectiveness of health care services; the quality of healthcare services and its relationship to health status, and; the uses of medical knowledge.

Due to the near-universal desire for safe, effective, and high quality healthcare, there is a growing interest in international healthcare accreditation. Providing healthcare, especially of an adequate standard, is a complex and challenging process. Healthcare is a vital and pervasive issue; it influences all aspects of societies. It has medical, social, political, ethical, business, and financial ramifications. In any part of the world healthcare services can be provided either by the public sector or by the private sector, or by a combination of the two. Healthcare can be provided in hospitals or be accessed through practitioners working in the community, such as general medical practitioners and dental surgeons.

Evidence-based nursing (EBN) is an approach to making quality decisions and providing nursing care based upon personal clinical expertise in combination with the most current, relevant research available on the topic. This approach is using evidence-based practice (EBP) as a foundation. EBN implements the most up to date methods of providing care, which have been proven through appraisal of high quality studies and statistically significant research findings. The goal of EBN is to improve the health and safety of patients while also providing care in a cost-effective manner to improve the outcomes for both the patient and the healthcare system. EBN is a process founded on the collection, interpretation, appraisal, and integration of valid, clinically significant, and applicable research. The evidence used to change practice or make a clinical decision can be separated into seven levels of evidence that differ in type of study and level of quality. To properly implement EBN, the knowledge of the nurse, the patient's preferences, and multiple studies of evidence must all be collaborated and utilized in order to produce an appropriate solution to the task at hand. These skills are taught in modern nursing education and also as a part of professional training.

Outcomes research is a branch of public health research which studies the end results of the structure and processes of the health care system on the health and well-being of patients and populations. According to one medical outcomes and guidelines source book - 1996, Outcomes research includes health services research that focuses on identifying variations in medical procedures and associated health outcomes. Though listed as a synonym for the National Library of Medicine MeSH term "Outcome Assessment ", outcomes research may refer to both health services research and healthcare outcomes assessment, which aims at health technology assessment, decision making, and policy analysis through systematic evaluation of quality of care, access, and effectiveness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quality of life (healthcare)</span> Notion in healthcare

In general, quality of life is the perceived quality of an individual's daily life, that is, an assessment of their well-being or lack thereof. This includes all emotional, social and physical aspects of the individual's life. In health care, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an assessment of how the individual's well-being may be affected over time by a disease, disability or disorder.

Behavioral health outcome management (BHOM) involves the use of behavioral health outcome measurement data to help guide and inform the treatment of each individual patient. Like blood pressure, cholesterol and other routine lab work that helps to guide and inform general medical practice, the use of routine measurement in behavioral health is proving to be invaluable in assisting therapists to deliver better quality care.

The Clinical Care Classification (CCC) System is a standardized, coded nursing terminology that identifies the discrete elements of nursing practice. The CCC provides a unique framework and coding structure. Used for documenting the plan of care; following the nursing process in all health care settings.

Avedis Donabedian was a physician and founder of the study of quality in health care and medical outcomes research, most famously as a creator of the Donabedian model of care.

Health care quality is a level of value provided by any health care resource, as determined by some measurement. As with quality in other fields, it is an assessment of whether something is good enough and whether it is suitable for its purpose. The goal of health care is to provide medical resources of high quality to all who need them; that is, to ensure good quality of life, cure illnesses when possible, to extend life expectancy, and so on. Researchers use a variety of quality measures to attempt to determine health care quality, including counts of a therapy's reduction or lessening of diseases identified by medical diagnosis, a decrease in the number of risk factors which people have following preventive care, or a survey of health indicators in a population who are accessing certain kinds of care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural competence in healthcare</span> Health care services that are sensitive and responsive to the needs of diverse cultures

Cultural competence in healthcare refers to the ability for healthcare professionals to demonstrate cultural competence toward patients with diverse values, beliefs, and feelings. This process includes consideration of the individual social, cultural, and psychological needs of patients for effective cross-cultural communication with their health care providers. The goal of cultural competence in health care is to reduce health disparities and to provide optimal care to patients regardless of their race, gender, ethnic background, native languages spoken, and religious or cultural beliefs. Cultural competency training is important in health care fields where human interaction is common, including medicine, nursing, allied health, mental health, social work, pharmacy, oral health, and public health fields.

The Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network (CERTAIN) is a learning healthcare system in Washington State focused on patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER), leveraging existing healthcare data for research and healthcare improvement, incorporating patient and other healthcare stakeholder voices into research, and facilitating dissemination and implementation of research evidence into clinical practice.

ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, also known as ISPOR is a global, nonprofit 501(c)(3) public organization for educational and scientific purposes, as defined by the United States Internal Revenue Service.

A nurse scientist is a registered nurse with advanced education and expertise in nursing research. These professionals play a critical role in advancing nursing knowledge, improving patient care, and shaping the future of the nursing profession. Highly educated and specialized, nurse scientists conduct research to generate new knowledge about nursing care, employing a deep understanding of nursing theory, research methodologies, and clinical practice. Nurse scientists are essential contributors to the development of new nursing interventions and practices. Their skills extend beyond academic settings and these advanced nurses work in hospitals, research institutes, and community organizations. Through their efforts, nurse scientists have a profound impact on the quality of healthcare, contributing significantly to the improvement of patient care and the overall advancement of the nursing profession. They possess advanced qualifications, typically holding a Ph.D. in nursing or a related field, demonstrating expertise not only in research principles and methodology but also in-depth content knowledge within a specific clinical area. The primary focus of the role is to provide leadership in the development, coordination and management of clinical research studies; provide mentorship for nurses in research; lead evaluation activities that improve outcomes for patients participating in research studies; contribute to the overall health sciences literature. Nurse scientists have been regarded as knowledge brokers. They participate in nursing research.

References

  1. ↑ McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, et al. (2007). Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 7: Care Coordination). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2007 Jun.
  2. 1 2 Donabedian, A. (1988). "The quality of care: How can it be assessed?". JAMA . 260 (12): 1743–8. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033. PMID   3045356.
  3. ↑ Frenk, J. (2000). Bulletin of the World Health Organization: Obituary of Avedis Donabedian, 70 (12).
  4. ↑ McQuestion, M.J. (2006) Presentation: Quality of Care Archived 2021-09-16 at the Wayback Machine . Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Donabedian(2003). An introduction to quality assurance in health care. (1st ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  6. 1 2 3 Donabedian, A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring Vol. 1. The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1980.
  7. ↑ Andersen R.M, Rice T.R, and Kominski G.F., (2007) Changing the U.S. Health Care System, Third Edit. Jossey-Bass, pp. 187–190.
  8. ↑ McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, et al. (2007) Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 7: Care Coordination). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2007 Jun. (Technical Reviews, No. 9.7.) 5, Conceptual Frameworks and Their Application to Evaluating Care Coordination Interventions.
  9. ↑ Lawson EF & Yazdany J. Healthcare quality in systemic lupus erythematosus: using Donabedian’s conceptual framework to understand what we know. International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology 7(1): 95-107, published February 2012.
  10. ↑ Brien SE & Ghali WA. Public reporting of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR): implications for the Canadian approach to safety and quality in health care Archived June 19, 2013, at the Wayback Machine . Open Medicine 2(3), published 2008.
  11. ↑ Martin LA, Nelson EC, Lloyd RC, Nolan TW. Whole system measures. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge (MA): Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2007.
  12. ↑ Mitchell PH, Ferketich S, Jennings BM (1998). "Quality health outcomes model. American Academy of Nursing Expert Panel on Quality Health Care". Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 30 (1): 43–6. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1998.tb01234.x. PMID   9549940.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ↑ Carayon P., Schoofs Hundt A., Karsh B.-T., Gurses A. P., Alvarado C. J., Smith M., Flatley Brennan P. (2006). "Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model". Quality and Safety in Health Care. 15 (Suppl 1): i50-8. doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015842. PMC   2464868 . PMID   17142610.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ↑ Coyle YM, Battles JB (1999). "Using antecedents of medical care to develop valid quality of care measures". Int J Qual Health Care. 11 (1): 5–12. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/11.1.5 . PMID   10411284.
  15. 1 2 3 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Teamwork and Patient Safety: Chapter 4. Retrieved 28 January 2013.
  16. ↑ Donabedian, A (2005). "Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966". The Milbank Quarterly. 83 (4): 691–729. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x. PMC   2690293 . PMID   16279964.
  17. ↑ Sunol, R. (2000). "Avedis Donabedian". International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 12 (6): 451–454. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/12.6.451 . PMID   11245100.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.