Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

[Tools for assessing healthcare delivery].

A Vergnenègre1

  • 1Service de l'Information Médicale et de l'Evaluation, Service de Pathologie Respiratoire et d'Allergologie, Hôpital du Cluzeau, CHU de Limoges, France. avergne@unilim.fr

Revue Des Maladies Respiratoires
|April 11, 2006
PubMed
Summary

This study reviews the different tools used to assess the quality of healthcare delivery. It organizes these tools into two main categories: those that synthesize information, like consensus conferences and practice guidelines, and those that compare practices to a reference standard, such as clinical audits. The paper also discusses less commonly used methods like mortality and morbidity conferences and risk management. The authors suggest that legal changes in France may increase the use of these tools. They emphasize the importance of understanding these methods to improve healthcare quality.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring a <i>BRAF</i> mutation: a multicentre study exploring clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes in a real-life setting: EXPLORE GFPC 02-14.

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)·2018
Same author

Management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a French multicenter retrospective study (GFPC 0802 study).

BMC cancer·2015
Same author

Impact of Continuing First-Line EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy Beyond RECIST Disease Progression in Patients with Advanced EGFR-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Retrospective GFPC 04-13 Study.

Targeted oncology·2015
Same author

Two biomarker-directed randomized trials in European and Chinese patients with nonsmall-cell lung cancer: the BRCA1-RAP80 Expression Customization (BREC) studies.

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2014
Same author

Randomized open-label non-comparative multicenter phase II trial of sequential erlotinib and docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of first-line chemotherapy: GFPC 10.02 study.

Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)·2014
Same author

Real-world healthcare resource utilization in a European non-small cell lung cancer population: the EPICLIN-Lung study.

Current medical research and opinion·2013

Area of Science:

  • Healthcare quality assessment
  • Clinical practice evaluation

Background:

Improving healthcare quality has gained significant attention in recent years. Prior research has shown that evaluating medical practices is crucial for patient safety and treatment effectiveness. However, gaps remain in understanding which tools are most suitable for different contexts. Existing literature highlights the importance of structured evaluation methods. Yet, no prior work had resolved how to best categorize these tools for practical use. The French healthcare system has introduced legal changes that may influence quality assessment practices. This context raises questions about how to apply these tools effectively. Understanding the variety of available techniques is essential for practitioners. This paper addresses these uncertainties by reviewing available methods.

Purpose Of The Study:

The aim of this study is to clarify the range of tools available for quality assessment in healthcare. It focuses on categorizing these tools based on their functions and applications. The study seeks to provide a framework for selecting appropriate methods in different clinical settings. The motivation stems from recent legal changes in France that may impact healthcare delivery. The paper addresses the need for a structured overview of evaluation techniques. It aims to help professionals choose the most suitable tools for their specific needs. The study also considers how these tools might be used in the future. The goal is to support better decision-making in healthcare quality improvement.

Keywords:
Healthcare quality assessmentClinical evaluation methodsMedical practice improvementQuality management in healthcare

Frequently Asked Questions

The first category includes information synthesis techniques like consensus conferences and practice guidelines. The second category involves comparing practices to a reference standard, such as clinical audits.

Practice guidelines synthesize expert opinions to define best practices. They are used to establish standardized care protocols and improve consistency in healthcare delivery.

Clinical audits compare current practices to a reference standard. They help identify gaps and suggest improvements in healthcare delivery.

These conferences are used to review adverse events and improve patient safety. They are part of a broader problem-solving approach to quality improvement.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

The study organizes quality assessment tools into two main categories. The first includes methods that synthesize information, such as consensus conferences and practice guidelines. These tools rely on expert input to define best practices. The second category involves comparing practices to a reference standard. This includes clinical audits and appropriateness evaluation protocols. The paper also discusses less common approaches like clinical care pathways and risk management. These tools are often part of broader quality management systems. The authors analyze how each method is applied in real-world settings. They examine the strengths and limitations of each approach. The study draws on French healthcare regulations and legal changes.

Main Results:

The first category of tools includes consensus-based methods like practice guidelines. These are used to establish standardized care protocols. The second category involves comparing practices to a reference standard. Clinical audits are a primary example of this approach. The study also highlights problem-solving methods like risk management. These are often part of total quality management systems. The authors note that some tools are less commonly used but still valuable. For example, mortality and morbidity conferences are part of this group. The paper suggests that legal changes in France may increase the use of these tools. The results emphasize the need for healthcare professionals to understand these methods.

Conclusions:

The authors propose that a structured approach to quality assessment is essential for healthcare improvement. They suggest that understanding the different categories of tools is necessary for effective use. The study does not claim that one method is superior to others. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of selecting the right tool for the task. The authors note that legal changes may influence the adoption of these methods. They propose that training in these techniques will help improve healthcare delivery. The study does not suggest new tools but highlights existing ones. The authors conclude that a sound knowledge of these methods is needed for quality assessment.

Recent legal changes in France may increase the use of these tools. The authors suggest that these changes could influence healthcare delivery practices.

The authors propose that a structured approach to quality assessment is essential. They suggest that training in these techniques is needed to improve healthcare delivery.