Keywords
quality, safety, kin centered, covid19, person centered care,
This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway.
This article is included in the Health Services gateway.
This article is included in the Sociology of Health gateway.
This article is included in the Coronavirus collection.
quality, safety, kin centered, covid19, person centered care,
Over the past twenty years, since the defining of quality in healthcare by the Institute of Medicine (IOM)1, an industry has developed in the field of quality improvement and patient safety. This has included the academic study of the theory and methodology and the actual implementation of the studied theory. The result has been some improvement, but not to the extent that would allow a claim of success2,3. It has been said that there is insufficient evidence for the impact of quality improvement and more research is required4. In this paper, we take the opportunity to revise our basic framework and to redefine quality with the advantage of the experience gained over the past 20 years. One may ask why we need to redefine what is meant by quality in healthcare.
The actual work of healthcare service today struggles to meet the needs of people for better health. It has been designed to address failures in disease management, rather than in working with people to maintain health. It seems easier to focus on “standard work” and the “actions” in disease management, rather than on a more integrated view of the “relationships” that are required to maintain health. Furthermore, more advances in health have come from preventive measures in public health, such as immunisation, clean water, sanitation and housing5,6. In addition, the methods of assessing the impact of quality improvement have not lent themselves well to the standard way of assessing interventions in healthcare, nor have they bridged the gap between disease management and wellness or disease prevention7.
Current healthcare service improvement has adopted many theories, methodologies and interventions from other industries, which have demonstrated important gains in quality, cost and safety. During the last century, one can discern two approaches on the creation, assessment, and improvement of the quality of healthcare delivery (see Table 1). Each approach has made important contributions to our abilities to make a better healthcare service and each has worked around a relatively common question. For convenience, we have named the first approach, Quality 1.0, “Q 1.0”. This began in the second decade of the 20th century in the USA, when the American College of Surgeons began their program of hospital standards. Three decades later, other national organizations of hospitals and professionals joined to form the “Joint Commission” for the Accreditation of Hospitals8,9. With the passage of the Medicare payment program, these certification efforts were linked to qualification for receipt of payment for hospitalisation.
With the advent of post-World War II improvement in systems thinking and system improvement methods, system- or enterprise-wide efforts to address quality emerged in many economic sectors. Initially, these improvement initiatives occurred outside of healthcare service, but increasingly from the mid-1980’s, improvement interventions spread to healthcare services. This new approach is termed Quality 2.0, “Q 2.0”. In this process the ideas of quality were defined by Donabedian as being system- and process-driven to produce the desired outcomes10. The early interventions to make quality a system or enterprise-wide endeavour were promoted with the introduction of the theories and methods of W. Edwards Deming, Joseph M. Juran and others11–14.
The IOM provided an important stimulus for the current focus on quality in healthcare with its reviews of the safety and quality of health care services1,15. The IOM defined six domains of quality, which have become the standard within the growing development of the science of improvement in healthcare: safe, efficient, effective, timely, equitable and patient-centred1. The theories and methodologies that had been successful in other economic sectors have been thought to be appropriate to the challenges of quality in health care delivery16–18. We have learned much, as a new language of systems, processes and outcomes has been added to the study and practice of clinical excellence, previously thought to be “quality in healthcare.” Attention shifted from a minimum “threshold” of quality to the concept of a “ceiling” of quality—not, “are you good enough to qualify?” but “how good can quality become?” Examples of success have been decreases in some infection rates, perceived increased access to healthcare, changes in person-centred care and improvements in aspects of safety19–23. System-wide improvement has been demonstrated at some institutions24.
Yet, for all these achievements, the persistence and the universal nature of the problem was highlighted in three key publications in 2018, which demonstrated that more than eight million people die from poor quality care in low and middle income countries25–27. In high income countries, at least 1 out of 10 patients is adversely affected during treatment, often resulting from persistent unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery, where a considerable proportion of patients did not receive appropriate, evidence-based care28.
We believe that the development of technical solutions helped connect improvement efforts to the earlier focus on “professional work.” These efforts allowed many gains. For example, specific safety initiatives have decreased pressure ulcers, falls in hospitals and hospital-acquired infections29–32. However, today we can also recognise the diminishment of attention to some very basic issues. For example, what does “quality” really mean to the person whose health it is? In our efforts to clarify desired professional roles, we may have inadvertently created a “product-dominant logic”: professionals making a quality healthcare service and then trying to “sell” it to patients. We think it is time to step back and reconsider what healthcare service is. How is it made and what does quality really means to the person whose health it is?
The approach has changed more recently, and the focusing question seems to have become something of the following nature: “How might we improve the value of the contribution that healthcare service makes to health?”33. This invites attention to who actually owns a person’s health: the healthcare provider or the individual receiving healthcare? In addition, we postulate that the concept of kinship extends to include both the care giver and the care provider, as they work together to make and improve services in support of an individual’s or a community’s health. The work of design, execution, assessment and improvement involves the integration of multiple systems of knowledge and skill.
Co-productive work invites new models of value creation and attention to the basic architecture of those systems. Because these are different to those in the approach of “Q 2.0,” we have named this approach Quality 3.0, “Q 3.0”. Each of these approaches to quality offer important insights into the complex work involved in healthcare service. We think of each approach as adding to our capability to make better health, rather than “substituting” or “replacing” for the earlier approaches. The approaches are summarised in Table 1.
In this paper, we propose a new construct for defining quality of healthcare, where the aim is to meet the needs of the patient as a person, rather than meeting the needs of the healthcare system, which is as complex industry selling a product of disease management34. In proposing a new framework, it is tempting to dismiss earlier concepts. While we utilise the same dimensions, they have been reoriented with new ones added to invite a “service-dominant” logic. The new dimensions of quality will become even more relevant for the way we will facilitate health and make healthcare services in the future.
Many forces are at work today that seem to invite these changes. Information access has become more open, with the growth of the internet and social media, so it is much easier for any person to explore what is known about a problem or condition. “Making” and the maker-society invite a sense of personal agency more than traditional deference to “professional experts.” Healthcare professionals have been working to shed paternalistic legacies, creating a new construct, which we have named the commons, whereby all are working together towards the common good of health rather than simply managing disease. This is evidenced in some of the interventions to address the challenge of COVID-19. Historic conventions about payment and finance have given way to significant organizational financial stresses in all societies. The challenge of explicitly recognising the contributions of patients and families, in addition to those of professionals, while maintaining a person-centred focus during and after the pandemic for people who are affected and for those who are not, has invited a new model of quality for the future.
Concurrent with the pandemic, the issue of the structural inequalities in society have become more prominent. A new model is required to address the way we, as healthcare providers, address issues in society that impact the health of the people. These include structural racism35 and the social determinants of health36, including food insecurity37, gender inequality38 and inherent violence39,40 within many societies. COVID-19 has unmasked these, and we think the new model is a response to the past failures of society to address these issues. Some may say that this is politicisation of health. Rather we see it as making the quality model socially relevant to our times and to the people who are most marginalised.
One of the early developers of modern Health Services Research, Kerr White, noted that the public’s health was not well served by the schism that developed during the last century between “medicine” (personal health) and “public health”41. He suggested that this separation was not serving the public’s health well and that the study of epidemiology might help. Today, the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic has given us another clear view of the ways that this separation has had real consequences in unnecessary death and continues to serve us poorly. We believe that an appreciation of the common humanity—kin—amongst the people who act in the personal and in the public sectors, in addition to the study and contribution of epidemiology, can help. This focus on the relationships helps energise a bridge across the divide of the two sectors. By an explicit focus on the concept of kin, we can see a person as an individual and as a member of a population. This shared position of people helps us appreciate that kin-shipness or “kindness” can serve as a core value. It has helped us recognise the importance of kin, our fellow human beings, in our daily lives and that the absence of attention to these relationships—kin—, is a painful limitation to how we pursue health, not only in COVID-19, but also in numerous other ways, including in the end of life, for example. By kin we refer to the wider social construct around the people involved in receiving and providing care. Moreover, there is a need to develop a new way of thinking as one faces the challenges of measuring wellness, equity and good health42. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the failure of linear thinking to produce results when responding to a crisis. This has demonstrated that we need to see quality as part of a complex adaptive system with many competing linkages. Healthcare has many components, both within the formal structures of health service delivery and more importantly within the community and in other sectors. To produce health, these components need to interact in a way that benefits the people receiving care43,44.
In short, we can now see clearly that not only is it very difficult to outsource one’s health to someone else—the truth is that we have no real option but to work in new ways to coproduce a healthcare service that is capable of a greater contribution to better health. We believe that the impact of COVID-19 opens an opportunity not to return to the “old normal” or develop a “new normal” based on the old, but rather to conceptually redefine what we mean by quality in healthcare, how we define each other’s roles and how we define person-centred care for individuals and communities.
Underlying our thinking has been a recognition of the benefits of understanding systems as complex adaptive phenomena, of recognising that at some level all healthcare service is coproduced by persons we sometimes call professionals and persons we sometimes call patients. They are “kin” to each other in this interdependent work45.
The failure to link up the different parts of care during the pandemic, e.g. social care with healthcare, has exposed an underlying problem with the design of care. This has meant that many vulnerable people were placed at risk and potentially endured more harm. Healthcare quality and safety requires the interaction of these complex parts, continually adapting to the changing demands, each with its own complexity and each of which having to integrate at a specific time to deliver safe, good quality care. For example, the initial approach to patient safety (called Safety 1) focused on addressing adverse events and undertook linear assessments of unsafe events. These cause and effect assessments were often too simplistic to consider the complexity of causal systems at work. The progression has been to an understanding of complexity and resilience in quality and safety, with the building of resilience and constant learning, as we adapt to changing circumstances (called Safety 2). A different approach to quality is required as well46,47.
The quality and safety movement has been reactive to what has not been working and we believe that we now need to move to the concept of health and its coproduction. The concept of coproduction of quality in service systems is in its early phase of development48–50. There is a need to include people as partners and to move away from the correction of defects in disease management towards the creation of health. People, i.e. both the professionals and the patients interdependently involved, are not the problem, they are the key to a future quality model. While there has been a growing body of evidenced-based interventions, the problem has been one of implementation, spread and sustainability of interventions that have a firm evidence base51. We believe that organised efforts of quality improvement and safety, be it the practice or academic research of the practice has become too technical and people cannot relate to the challenge of actually fostering better health. We need a paradigm that works in today’s real world. One that facilitates better health for individuals and communities, so that the goal of better health will be achieved. In an era where shared creation of services is key, human resources in healthcare will become one of the major challenges. Quality should include care for both persons as patients and as professionals.
The six domains of quality in the IOM model no longer fit the requirements of a person-centred approach to the facilitation of health and the delivery of universal healthcare. We suggest a focus on the co-creation of better health — a quality system for the people who are working together to co-produce services that contribute to better health (Figure 1).
The original model had person-centred care as one of the domains. We wish to further develop this by recognising the shared humanity of the people involved. The word “kin” is introduced to embody the social relationships and lived realities that surround the individuals involved, both those providing care and those receiving care. Healthcare service is not only about the person as patient or professional, but also about their family and wider social relationships. The dimension person/kin-centred surrounds every domain and is part of all that we do. The need for this approach has been demonstrated to be an essential component of the response to the pandemic. John Ballatt and colleagues suggest that “kindness [kinshipness] is ...not a ‘nice’ side issue, it is the glue of cooperation required for progress to be the most beneficial to the most people”45.
We place the person at the core of quality, rather than being a separate domain. At the core are the values of healthcare, based on kindness with compassion; partnership and coproduction; dignity and respect for people and each other; where people are seen from a holistic approach, in their totality and not as a disease or an organ of the body. The central tenet is kindness, so the dimension of person-centred care is kin-centred as well, involving all those who are related to the person receiving and the person providing care. This approach will facilitate the coproduction of quality and safety and achievement of the other domains. This emphasis invites and expands change from “installing” technical solutions to working with people and technical solutions. Telehealth efforts make it clear that more use of digital connectivity can work and possibly become part of the extended connectivity of kin52,53. The other domains remain in place. They are transfused with person-centred care. This new way of thinking also applies to the other person involved in making the service called “healthcare.” This means that among colleagues, and certainly with regards to relationships with hierarchical supervisors, there needs to be an understanding built on kindness, dignity, respect and partnership – and it includes the holistic person.
A new domain, eco-friendly, is added to reflect the growing challenges of climate change and to introduce the need to address the challenges of sustainability, not only on organisation level, but in every contact in the micro-system54,55. We believe that being eco-friendly with a concern for climate change is central to the concept of kinship. The principle of transparency is included to surround all the technical domains, respecting the person’s right to privacy but also the right to know the data that specifically concerns themselves. Transparency is needed for providers, so that they can be open with themselves, as well as with the people to whom they deliver care. Transparency and resilience, i.e. the ability to operate with psychological safety, are the basis for the pursuit of truthful data collection, analysis and interpretation. Transparency with all our “kin” begins with professionals being transparent with each other56.
We believe that healthcare promotion and the delivery of healthcare must return to the core tenets of care—a form of “service”—and include the values that we have made central to the model in everything that we do. In the supplementary document we demonstrate the actions that are required to implement this new quality paradigm. Kin and person-centred care are infused in every effort to improve care, safety and effectiveness. The introduction of transparency will require a culture change in every sector of healthcare. Ecology is now a central domain, so all decisions and planning will require programmes to improve the impact on the climate and environment. Quality health services are based on what one human offers to another. These services are fundamentally a human activity, with attendant rights, responsibilities, and implications. To achieve this, we need to have high quality care for the professionals who deliver care and a redesign of systems, in order to facilitate true person and kin-centred care. In Table 2 the possible actions to be undertaken are suggested, these are not comprehensive and will be dynamic, changing in different contexts.
Over the past few years, there has been a growing realisation that the current design of the system of healthcare has resulted in decreased wellbeing for the professionals involved in healthcare, with increasing reports of burn-out and “bore-out”57. The impact of safety events on clinicians has been documented and a meta-analysis of wellness and burn-out demonstrates the negative impact on care givers58,59. The review by the National Academies of Sciences concluded that the delivery of quality person-centred care will require a workforce whose wellbeing is paramount, which implies the dehumanisation of healthcare must be reversed60,61.
The recent focus on health inequalities and structural racism makes a change of focus more pressing with the concept of kinship reaching to the core of what it is to be a healer. This attention to relationship-as-fundamental is not new. In addition to the bridging energy for our use as we address the “schism”, we also recognise that numerous cultures across the globe have realised for centuries that this universal recognition of the importance of relationship is fundamental in all human life. Perhaps this is best known in the African philosophy of Ubuntu, where “I” am because “we” are. It is our contention that the new model of quality that we propose is the first step in this direction for policy makers, leaders and healthcare providers to explore and embrace this new way of thinking and to invite a return to a recognition of our shared humanity and the importance of kindness in healthcare for people and kin.
No data is associated with this article.
The graphic is based on one designed by Sinead McArdle at ISQua. Astrid Van Wilder proofread the paper.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?
Partly
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Yes
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Yes
References
1. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C: From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider.Ann Fam Med. 12 (6): 573-6 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Health service researcher with a focus on digitally supported, person-centered, integrated and proactive care.
Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?
Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Yes
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 3 (revision) 20 Jul 21 |
read | ||
Version 2 (revision) 19 Jan 21 |
read | read | |
Version 1 16 Sep 20 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
While reading I noted some ideas to challenge the view stated in the article.
- A first concept I would suggest to relate to the proposed model is patient-experience. E.g the knee replacement patient will not consider the maximum angle he can bend his knee, but he will estimate the quality of his care considering if he is able again to walk to visit his neighbour or family or to perform work in the garden he loves. However the physiotherapist uses the angle of bending the knee to estimate the quality of care.
I think the different points of view should be taken into account. And maybe the patient and the clinicians should share these views before and during treatment and care.
- In the visual presentation of the model I would suggest to add connecting lines between the six domains and towards the central concept, as they seem interconnected with each other.
- The authors suggest that between 1999/2001 and 2020 no improvement was made, and that we would only fix things going wrong.
I would like to see more elaboration to underpin how this new paradigm will effectively lead to better care. The adoption of the new model and the outcomes in the future will depend heavily on the culture of the institutions that adopt the new vision. An organisational culture that shares a common vision and drive towards the best possible patient care, is essential and takes more than the text of the mission statement of the care facility, the hospital or the elderly home.
- In my opinion there could be a larger emphasis on the mission, the task, (almost 'the obligation') for health care organisations to keep aiming for better quality of care. Off course this depends on the everyday work ethics of the individual healthcare providers and all involved in the care process. But the organisation focus could be more elaborated in the article.
- To conclude I think there is a need of 'leadership' on different levels and for the different actors, which is not adressed yet in this article. The proposed model can serve towards a common and shared mission.
This mission almost cannot be defined otherwise than "to focus on the health and well-being of the client and all involved, in an athmosphere of friendly and kind relationships".
And the patient himself should show some leadership by taking an active role in decisions about his health, cure and care.
Clinicians should lead the patient forward, but not in a paternalistic way. They should also be leaders for their multidisciplinary colleagues and lift each other to a higher level of quality.
The health care providers (institutions) should show leadership to maintain 'healthy' organisations and a healthy staff.
While reading I noted some ideas to challenge the view stated in the article.
- A first concept I would suggest to relate to the proposed model is patient-experience. E.g the knee replacement patient will not consider the maximum angle he can bend his knee, but he will estimate the quality of his care considering if he is able again to walk to visit his neighbour or family or to perform work in the garden he loves. However the physiotherapist uses the angle of bending the knee to estimate the quality of care.
I think the different points of view should be taken into account. And maybe the patient and the clinicians should share these views before and during treatment and care.
- In the visual presentation of the model I would suggest to add connecting lines between the six domains and towards the central concept, as they seem interconnected with each other.
- The authors suggest that between 1999/2001 and 2020 no improvement was made, and that we would only fix things going wrong.
I would like to see more elaboration to underpin how this new paradigm will effectively lead to better care. The adoption of the new model and the outcomes in the future will depend heavily on the culture of the institutions that adopt the new vision. An organisational culture that shares a common vision and drive towards the best possible patient care, is essential and takes more than the text of the mission statement of the care facility, the hospital or the elderly home.
- In my opinion there could be a larger emphasis on the mission, the task, (almost 'the obligation') for health care organisations to keep aiming for better quality of care. Off course this depends on the everyday work ethics of the individual healthcare providers and all involved in the care process. But the organisation focus could be more elaborated in the article.
- To conclude I think there is a need of 'leadership' on different levels and for the different actors, which is not adressed yet in this article. The proposed model can serve towards a common and shared mission.
This mission almost cannot be defined otherwise than "to focus on the health and well-being of the client and all involved, in an athmosphere of friendly and kind relationships".
And the patient himself should show some leadership by taking an active role in decisions about his health, cure and care.
Clinicians should lead the patient forward, but not in a paternalistic way. They should also be leaders for their multidisciplinary colleagues and lift each other to a higher level of quality.
The health care providers (institutions) should show leadership to maintain 'healthy' organisations and a healthy staff.