Donabedian Quality Framework

The Donabedian Quality Framework offered a foundation for the study of NPLCs in this study. Avedis Donabedian developed a model to describe the processes of quality in health care. Donabedian (2005) started by identifying how difficult is it to define ‘quality’ in health care and he concluded by stating that there is no single definition that fits. There are a multitude of possible definitions and that the approach to the assessment of health care will depend on the criteria selected to define quality.

Donabedian (2003) offered his own definition of ‘quality’ as the product of science and technology of health care as well as the application of that science and technology in practice. The product is characterized by a number of attributes including efficacy, effectiveness, efficiency, optimality, acceptability, legitimacy and equity. Table 1 offers a brief definition of each component.

Table 4.1: Components of Quality: Definitions

1. Efficacy. The ability of the science and technology of health care to bring about

improvements in health when used under the most favorable circumstances.

2. Effectiveness. The degree to which attainable improvements in health are, in fact, attained.

3. Efficiency. The ability to lower the cost of care without diminishing attainable improvements

in health.

4. Optimality. The balancing of improvements in health against the costs of such

improvements.

5. Acceptability. Conformity to the wishes, desires, and expectations of patients and their

families.

6. Legitimacy. Conformity to social preferences as expressed in ethical principles, values,

norms, mores, laws, and regulations.

7. Equity. Conformity to a principle that determines what is just and fair in the distribution of

health care and its benefits among members of the population.

The components of quality can be used in whole, or in part, to monitor the level of quality in health care (Donabedian, 2003). Two components including efficiency and optimality, reflect on the costs of health care, which are not the focus of this study. However, Donabedian (2003) identifies ‘clinical efficiency’ within the larger component, which refers to individual health care providers’ use of the best and most effective practice, which was the focus of this research.

Acceptability of care is further broken down to reflect on the ease to which a patient is able to receive care. It also reflects the integrity of the patient-provider relationship, the extent to which patients agree with practitioners about the risks and benefits of the health care they receive and the level of equity perceived by patients. Issues of health care equity were explored in this study. Finally, the amenities of care themselves, are part of the component of acceptability (Donabedian, 2003).

A definition of quality is the foundation in ensuring, or evaluating quality in health care. However, the definition depends on the context of assessment, the criteria that is most relevant and on the items that are controllable (Donabedian, 2003). Once a definition of quality has been determined, assessment follows. This includes choosing among three approaches in assessing quality of care; structure, process and/or outcome (Donabedian, 2003). Structure refers to the conditions in which care is provided, or the way that health care is set up. This includes material and human resources as well as organizational characteristics (Donabedian, 2003). Process refers to the activities that constitute health care such as diagnosis, treatment, patient education and more. Process activities are carried out both by health care providers as well as patients and their families. Outcome is the desirable or undesirable changes that can be attributed to health care (Donabedian, 2003).

Donabedian (2003) clarifies that “structure, process and outcome are not attributes of quality. They are only kinds of information one can obtain, based on which one can infer whether quality is good or not” (p. 47). A predetermined relationship among structure-process-outcome is essential in order to draw inferences about quality. However, relationships between the three components are presumed to exist, but are not certainties and interaction between the model components is often much more complex than is represented in this linear format. The final caution that Donabedian (2003) issues is that the structure-process-outcome model was developed to assess clinical practice and related features. Use of the model in other circumstances may not appropriate.

The Structure-Process-Outcome model provides a framework for the evaluation of quality in health care. There are benefits and drawbacks to each of the three approaches. Evaluative strategies may use one or more of the three approaches and ‘the precise mix of which is to be determined by the nature of the problem to be studied and the availability of the information needed” (Donabedian, 2003, p. 56).

One of the important features of Donabedian’s framework is the consideration of structure and quality. A good amount of evidence in quality related to process and outcomes, but much less so on structure, in particular, organizational design (Glickman, Baggett, Krubert, Peterson & Schulman, 2007). “Organizational design is a formal, guided process for integrating the people, information, and technology of an organization, and serves as a key structural element …” (Glickman et al., 2007, p. 344). Organizational design is a variable in performance and quality outcomes. Quality improvement research should focus on identifying how the relationship between organizational attributes is related to quality of care (Glickman et al., 2007).

In this multiple case study, the components of Structure and Process were utilized to evaluate the quality of care for patients with diabetes and multimorbidity at NPLCs. Definitions of components for each category were developed and analysis of the data was used to reflect back on the relationship between the elements within Structure and Process in NPLCs and their impact on the quality of care of patients with diabetes and multimorbidity. The following table outlines the core elements captured in each component of the framework.

Table 4.2: Core Elements of NPLC Multiple Case Study

Structure Process Outcomes

− NPLC organizational characteristics

− Human Resources − Health Policy

− Community Health Resources

− Best practice guidelines for diabetes and multimorbidity care − Health education programs and

processes

− Interprofessional team approach

Not applicable