PubMed · 9496088
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L L Curtin. 1998. The aimlessly empowered.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9496088/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Though various health organizations may define and approach quality differently, the common denominator is the patient's perspective, experience and outcome. Quality issues should be an important part of health system executives' agenda. Successful quality programs have a number of key ingredients, including decision-reporting tools and business analytics information--which depend on robust information reporting and a system-wide electronic medical record--as well as highly motivated employees and physicians. In this installment of Straight Talk, representatives from two health systems--Kaiser Permanente and Clarian Health Partners--discuss their quality initiatives.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to clarify the distinction between research and audit, and propose appropriate regulatory arrangements for audit and related activities. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The methods used were literature reviews and conceptual analysis. FINDINGS: Research and audit overlap in various ways, but differ in terms of their purposes and the risks likely to be encountered and distinguished, along with a third related category of activities called quality improvement. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Appropriate regulatory arrangements are proposed for audit and quality improvement activities. Using these should ensure appropriate ethical standards and risk management, while avoiding the time-consuming over-regulation that occurs when projects are unnecessarily submitted to the ethical scrutiny appropriate for research projects. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Gives suggestions and information that could be of great value in spreading service improvement.
At a time when health and social care partnerships are continuing to occupy a central role within the UK government's policy strategy, researchers are increasingly being required to evaluate such organisational entities. This paper looks at a wide range of approaches which have been utilised to evaluate health and social care partnerships, and suggests that theory-led strategies are better able to address the complexities associated with such forms of evaluation. In particular, the author suggests that a combination of theories of change and realistic evaluation seems to be the most fruitful in tackling the evaluation difficulties associated with partnerships. Despite both being theory-led evaluation strategies, they fulfil quite different and complementary roles. However, both these approaches have been found to have some limitations in practice. Therefore, this paper suggests that interpreting these approaches through a framework of critical realism may overcome a number of these difficulties.