Alonazi Wadi B, Thomas Shane A
Department of Health and Hospital Administration, Faculty of Business Administration, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Deputy Dean (International), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia.
Health Serv Insights. 2014 Feb 10;7:1-12. doi: 10.4137/HSI.S13283. eCollection 2014.
The aim of this study was to explore the impact of quality of care (QoC) on patients' quality of life (QoL). In a cross-sectional study, two domains of QoC and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-Bref questionnaire were combined to collect data from 1,059 pre-discharge patients in four accredited hospitals (ACCHs) and four non-accredited hospitals (NACCHs) in Saudi Arabia. Health and well-being are often restricted to the characterization of sensory qualities in certain settings such as unrestricted access to healthcare, effective treatment, and social welfare. The patients admitted to tertiary health care facilities are generally able to present themselves with a holistic approach as to how they experience the impact of health policy. The statistical results indicated that patients reported a very limited correlation between QoC and QoL in both settings. The model established a positive, but ultimately weak and insignificant, association between QoC (access and effective treatment) and QoL (r = 0.349, P = 0.000; r = 0.161, P = 0.000, respectively). Even though the two settings are theoretically different in terms of being able to conceptualize, adopt, and implement QoC, the outcomes from both settings demonstrated insignificant relationships with QoL as the results were quite similar. Though modern medicine has substantially improved QoL around the world, this paper proposes that health accreditation has a very limited impact on improving QoL. This paper raises awareness of this topic with multiple healthcare professionals who are interested in correlating QoC and QoL. Hopefully, it will stimulate further research from other professional groups that have new and different perspectives. Addressing a transitional health care system that is in the process of endorsing accreditation, investigating the experience of tertiary cases, and analyzing deviated data may limit the generalization of this study. Global interest in applying public health policy underlines the impact of such process on patients' outcomes. As QoC accreditation does not automatically produce improved QoL outcomes, the proposed study encourages further investigation of the value of health accreditation on personal and social well-being.
本研究的目的是探讨医疗质量(QoC)对患者生活质量(QoL)的影响。在一项横断面研究中,将医疗质量的两个领域与世界卫生组织生活质量简表问卷相结合,从沙特阿拉伯的四家认证医院(ACCHs)和四家非认证医院(NACCHs)的1059名出院前患者中收集数据。健康和幸福通常局限于在某些环境中对感官品质的描述,如不受限制地获得医疗保健、有效的治疗和社会福利。入住三级医疗保健机构的患者通常能够以整体的方式呈现他们对健康政策影响的体验。统计结果表明,在两种环境中,患者报告的医疗质量与生活质量之间的相关性非常有限。该模型在医疗质量(可及性和有效治疗)与生活质量之间建立了积极但最终微弱且不显著的关联(分别为r = 0.349,P = 0.000;r = 0.161,P = 0.000)。尽管从理论上讲,这两种环境在能够概念化、采用和实施医疗质量方面有所不同,但两种环境的结果与生活质量的关系均不显著,因为结果非常相似。尽管现代医学在全球范围内大幅提高了生活质量,但本文提出,健康认证对改善生活质量的影响非常有限。本文提高了对该主题感兴趣的多名医疗保健专业人员对这一主题的认识,他们希望将医疗质量与生活质量相关联。希望它将激发其他具有新的和不同观点的专业团体进行进一步研究。处理一个正在认可认证过程中的过渡性医疗保健系统、调查三级病例的经验以及分析偏差数据可能会限制本研究的普遍性。全球对应用公共卫生政策的关注凸显了这一过程对患者结局的影响。由于医疗质量认证不会自动产生改善的生活质量结果,因此本研究鼓励进一步调查健康认证对个人和社会福祉的价值。