4.7 Article

Translating Improved Quality of Care Into an Improved Quality of Life for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 908-912

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.05.027

关键词

Crohn's; Colitis; Quality of Care; Inflammatory Bowel Disease

资金

  1. Abbvie
  2. Janssen
  3. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The term quality of care has been interpreted in different ways in medicine. Skeptics of the quality movement insist that checkboxes and government and payer oversight will not lead to better patient outcomes. Supporters refer to areas in medicine in which quality improvement efforts have led to improved survival, such as in cystic fibrosis and cardiovascular disease. For quality improvement to be effective, the process demands rigorous documentation, analysis, feedback, and behavioral change. This requires valid metrics and mechanisms to provide dynamic point-of-care (or close to point of care) feedback in a manner that drives improvement. For inflammatory bowel disease, work has been performed in Europe and the United States to develop a framework for how practitioners can improve quality of care. Improve Care Now has created a sophisticated quality improvement program for pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The American Gastroenterology Association has worked within the National Quality Strategy framework to develop quality measures for patients with inflammatory bowel disease that have been incorporated into Federal programs that are moving Medicare reimbursement from a volume-based to a value-based structure. The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America is initiating a quality intervention program that can be implemented in community and academic practices to stimulate continual improvement processes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. All of this work is intended to make quality improvement programs both feasible and useful, with the ultimate goal of improving quality of life for our patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据