Healthcare knowledge has developed in many ways over many years. However, with all these experiences, challenges always arise in policy-making in deciding what passes for quality healthcare. Over time, research has been conducted to accomplish great breakthroughs in the medical field. These developments have allowed for quality improvement. In this day and age, it is not just left to the medical practitioners to decide what constitutes quality health care. The international community has taken an interest in the level of quality healthcare, hence the establishment of the World Health Organization to oversee policy making as regards healthcare in member countries.
There are arguments concerning healthcare in this day and age, informed by two main arguments. Even with all the development in the medical field, there is evidence to suggest that the quality of healthcare remains to be of great concern healthcare systems have set different standards of healthcare delivery, hence wide variances between healthcare systems. The other argument is that rational local strategies need to be employed so that the best possible returns are reached for new enterprises in medicine, especially in the third world and developing countries. With the development in medical prowess, it goes to say, too that the medical delivery system should show progress to match the expectations of the medical practitioners and the people.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are many definitions of healthcare, about healthcare delivery and healthcare systems. It is difficult to come up with a single definition to fit all the stakeholders in the healthcare arena. The more acceptable definition for quality healthcare is the level to which healthcare services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes, and consistent with existing professional understanding. Quality of healthcare has been viewed as consisting of some essential attributes (World Health Organization, 2016). Essentially medical practitioners have envisioned healthcare to make improvements to healthcare in six areas of quality.
These dimensions include effectiveness, which means that the delivery of healthcare to individuals and communities based on their needs should improve and the outcomes should show evidence of improvement in healthcare conditions adherent to the improved healthcare conditions. The second aspect is the efficiency of healthcare provision, in that the process should display optimum results for limited use of resources and avoidance of wastage. The third dimension is accessibility. Accessibility in healthcare delivery means that it is timely, geographically accessible, and provided in a manner that the resources available are compatible with the medical requirements at that time. The fourth dimension to focus on is whether the healthcare system is patient-centered in healthcare delivery. The healthcare system should take into consideration the preferences and aspirations of persons receiving those services and the cultural compatibility of the population. The next dimension is equitability. In delivering healthcare, one must be sure not to discriminate against one person or another on account of their race, gender, characteristics, ethnicity, gender, status or location. Service delivery must be done in an equitable and fair manner that no person is discriminated against based on any differences. The sixth dimension is safety. Safety encompasses the delivery of healthcare in conditions that minimize the risk of causing any additional harm to the recipients of the services.
The dimensions of healthcare are important to bring to perspective the standards that are expected of healthcare practitioners and other stakeholders when it comes to healthcare delivery. The dimensions of healthcare delivery bring to perspective the meaning of quality healthcare and set a bar for healthcare delivery. These dimensions guide policymakers in setting standards for healthcare delivery and systems. The policymakers can make policies that are tailor-made to suit the receiving population so that their needs are adequately addressed. In the same manner, considering how far science has come over the many decades, these dimensions allow stakeholders to marry the current advancements with the evidence from healthcare provision. A lot had changed for the time when the doctor knew best. The medical delivery sphere now has many actors affected by decisions made by medical caregivers. The international community is also concerned about how medical services are rendered and frequently provide guidelines on the same. Presently, the bar for medical responsibility is high with punitive measures if one’s actions fall beneath that bar.
Healthcare allocation is aimed at achieving the highest benefit for the lowest risk possible. There have been concerns that resource allocation and prioritization of the same has worked more towards deviating from that goal. Resource allocation, for the most part, is driven by rising costs and the resultant pressure on budget allocation as opposed to quality health delivery, therefore resulting in nonuniform health systems. In most public institutions, resource allocation is a great setback because resources applicable to one disease are not necessarily applicable to another disease. Most investments in health care delivery are aimed at reducing health risks in the population. However, some risks are greater than others, and when allocating resources, one must respond to risks. Some considerations in resource allocation are concerned more with the immediate returns of reducing the risks of the disease. Funds are allocated depending on what risks are reduced as opposed to how the risks are reduced (Peckham & Hann, 2016). Although in a manner resource allocation helps to reduce risk among people, it does not handle the problem of reducing a wider scope of risk factors. In the long run, a lot of resources will have been pumped into tackling the high-risk factors that were not well funded and are expensive on account of their unavailability. The goal ends up unaccomplished. Resource allocation should feature all high-risk situations even though they have no immediate return. Regardless, the goal has been realized in part. Although the low return risks are not considered, the resources allocated to healthcare delivery ensure that the population with the highest healthcare needs is given attention, thus reducing the risk factor and increasing service delivery to that particular population.
Quality assurance in healthcare is an enterprise that is rarely connected to the day-to-day management of the healthcare system. When assessing the quality of healthcare, two major techniques have been centered upon over time. These are the implicit review and the explicit review. The implicit review uses experts who are capable of recognizing good care in the face of it, or, in other instances, other individuals that are thought to have more knowledge of that particular matter. The implicit method measures on a scale of the global expectations of health standards and awards scores to the standards of care displayed. The explicit review, on the other hand, involves a particular criterion that sets the standards at a particular degree, to which any activity must conform. In its nature, it is more compatible with non-professional staff (BERWICK, 2008). The professionals set the standards and other people, not necessarily professionals, assess them.
The implicit method is useful in quality assessment because people who are proficient in the matter can assess the situations. Their prowess in the field allows them to pick out discrepancies and address them appropriately. Additionally, it sets the bar at international standards, thereby making it possible to reach a universal threshold of healthcare delivery and avoid having different healthcare systems. The explicit technique, on the other hand, makes it possible to carry out assessments even without the presence of a trained professional. It reduces overreliance on experts to assess healthcare standards. Given that healthcare standards are available to all people, it is possible to maintain the standards as they should be at all times.
References
Berwick, D. M. (2008). Improving Health Care Safety and Quality. Family Practice News , 38 (2), 9. doi:10.1016/s0300-7073(08)70086-0
Peckham, S., & Hann, A. (2016). Resource Allocation and Priority Setting. In Public Health Ethics and Practice (p. 170). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK435786/
World Health Organization. (2016). Quality of care: a process for making strategic choices in health systems.
