Suppr超能文献

改进科学与改进学术:为改善医疗保健重塑研究。

Improvement Science Meets Improvement Scholarship: Reframing Research for Better Healthcare.

作者信息

Cribb Alan

机构信息

Centre for Public Policy Research, King's College London, Waterloo Bridge Wing FWB, London, SE1 9NH, UK.

出版信息

Health Care Anal. 2018 Jun;26(2):109-123. doi: 10.1007/s10728-017-0354-6.

Abstract

In this editorial essay I explore the possibilities of 'improvement scholarship' in order to set the scene for the theme of, and the other papers in, this issue. I contrast a narrow conception of quality improvement (QI) research with a much broader and more inclusive conception, arguing that we should greatly extend the existing dialogue between 'problem-solving' and 'critical' currents in improvement research. I have in mind the potential for building a much larger conversation between those people in 'improvement science' who are expressly concerned with tackling the problems facing healthcare and the wider group of colleagues who are engaged in health-related scholarship but who do not see themselves as particularly interested in quality improvement, indeed who may be critical of the language or concerns of QI. As one contribution to that conversation I suggest that that the increasing emphasis on theory and rigour in improvement research should include more focus on normative theory and rigour. The remaining papers in the issue are introduced including the various ways in which they handle the 'implicit normativity' of QI research and practice, and the linked theme of combining relatively 'tidy' and potentially 'unruly' forms of knowledge.

摘要

在这篇社论文章中,我探讨了“改进学术研究”的可能性,以便为本刊的主题及其他论文搭建背景。我将质量改进(QI)研究的狭义概念与更宽泛、更具包容性的概念进行对比,认为我们应大幅拓展改进研究中“解决问题”与“批判性”流派之间现有的对话。我想到的是,在“改进科学”中那些明确关注解决医疗保健问题的人与更广泛的从事健康相关学术研究但不认为自己对质量改进特别感兴趣、甚至可能对质量改进的语言或关注点持批评态度的同事群体之间,有可能展开更大规模的对话。作为对该对话的一项贡献,我建议改进研究中对理论和严谨性日益增加的强调应更多地关注规范理论和严谨性。本期的其余论文也会被介绍,包括它们处理QI研究与实践中“隐含规范性”的各种方式,以及将相对“整齐”和可能“杂乱”的知识形式相结合的相关主题。

相似文献

1
Improvement Science Meets Improvement Scholarship: Reframing Research for Better Healthcare.
Health Care Anal. 2018 Jun;26(2):109-123. doi: 10.1007/s10728-017-0354-6.
2
Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency.
Health Care Anal. 2018 Jun;26(2):189-205. doi: 10.1007/s10728-017-0350-x.
4
Differentiating research and quality improvement activities: A scoping review and implications for clinical scholarship.
J Clin Nurs. 2021 Sep;30(17-18):2480-2488. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15668. Epub 2021 Jun 16.
5
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
6
The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Jan;21(1):13-20. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000010. Epub 2011 Aug 10.
8
Applying adult development theories to improvement science.
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2017 Aug 14;30(7):617-627. doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-09-2016-0124.
9
Scholarship in Neuroscience Nursing.
J Neurosci Nurs. 2019 Oct;51(5):243-248. doi: 10.1097/JNN.0000000000000465.

引用本文的文献

1
What is improvement science, and what makes it different? An outline of the field and its frontiers.
Front Health Serv. 2025 Feb 20;4:1454658. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1454658. eCollection 2024.
3
Picturing aesthetic futures: values and visual tools within shared decision-making.
Integr Healthc J. 2022 Sep 12;4(1):e000126. doi: 10.1136/ihj-2022-000126. eCollection 2022.
4
Promoting scholarship in improvement science: A model for academic clinical departments.
Learn Health Syst. 2022 Sep 2;7(2):e10338. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10338. eCollection 2023 Apr.
5
Varieties of improvement expertise: Knowledge and contestation in health-care improvement.
Sociol Health Illn. 2023 May;45(4):734-753. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13616. Epub 2023 Jan 27.
6
Aesthetics for everyday quality: one way to enrich healthcare improvement debates.
Med Humanit. 2022 Dec;48(4):480-488. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2021-012330. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
7
Ethnographic research as an evolving method for supporting healthcare improvement skills: a scoping review.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Dec 5;21(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01466-9.
8
Talking it better: conversations and normative complexity in healthcare improvement.
Med Humanit. 2022 Mar;48(1):85-93. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2020-012129. Epub 2021 May 25.
9
What does 'quality' add? Towards an ethics of healthcare improvement.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Feb;46(2):118-122. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105635. Epub 2019 Nov 15.
10
How to improve healthcare improvement-an essay by Mary Dixon-Woods.
BMJ. 2019 Oct 1;367:l5514. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5514.

本文引用的文献

1
Does quality improvement improve quality?
Future Hosp J. 2016 Oct;3(3):191-194. doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191.
2
High Reliability and 'Cargo Cult QI': response to Sutcliffe 2017;26:248-51.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):518. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006748. Epub 2017 Apr 12.
4
Towards a sociology of healthcare safety and quality.
Sociol Health Illn. 2016 Feb;38(2):181-97. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12390. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
5
Healthcare quality and safety: a review of policy, practice and research.
Sociol Health Illn. 2016 Feb;38(2):198-215. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12391. Epub 2015 Dec 11.
6
What is the role of individual accountability in patient safety? A multi-site ethnographic study.
Sociol Health Illn. 2016 Feb;38(2):216-32. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12370. Epub 2015 Nov 4.
8
The science of human factors: separating fact from fiction.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22(10):802-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001450. Epub 2013 Apr 16.
9
Promotion of improvement as a science.
Lancet. 2013 Feb 2;381(9864):419-21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61850-9.
10
Clinicians in quality improvement: a new career pathway in academic medicine.
JAMA. 2009 Feb 18;301(7):766-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.140.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验