Made to Measure: The Ethics of Routine Measurement for Healthcare Improvement

Author:

Mitchell PollyORCID,Cribb AlanORCID,Entwistle VikkiORCID

Abstract

AbstractThis paper analyses the ethics of routine measurement for healthcare improvement. Routine measurement is an increasingly central part of healthcare system design and is taken to be necessary for successful healthcare improvement efforts. It is widely recognised that the effectiveness of routine measurement in bringing about improvement is limited—it often produces only modest effects or fails to generate anticipated improvements at all. We seek to show that these concerns do not exhaust the ethics of routine measurement. Even if routine measurement does lead to healthcare improvements, it has associated ethical costs which are not necessarily justified by its benefits. We argue that the practice of routine measurement changes the function of the healthcare system, resulting in an unintended and ethically significant transformation of the sector. It is difficult to determine whether such changes are justified or offset by the benefits of routine measurement because there may be no shared understanding of what is ‘good’ in healthcare by which to compare the benefits of routine measurement with the goods that are precluded by it. We counsel that the practice of routine measurement should proceed with caution and should be recognised to be an ethically significant choice, rather than an inevitability.

Funder

Wellcome Trust

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Health (social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Reference66 articles.

1. Darzi A. (2008). High quality care for all: NHS Next Stage Review final report. London, UK: UK Department of Health.

2. Berwick, D. M. (1989). Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 230(1), 53–56.

3. Institute for Healthcare Improvement (2019). Science of Improvement. Webpage. http://www.ihi.org/about/Pages/ScienceofImprovement.aspx. Accessed 3 Sep 2019.

4. Clarke, J., Davidge, M., & James, L. (2009). The how-to guide for measurement for improvement. London, UK: Patient Safety First.

5. NHS Improving Quality. (2014). First steps towards quality improvement: A simple guide to improving services. London, UK: NHS England.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3