Quality Management in Social and Health Care

Introduction

In social and health care contexts, quality management is essential because it attempts to enhance treatment efficacy and patient satisfaction with care services. Quality management in healthcare has grown increasingly essential as healthcare expenditures have increased. All healthcare systems, including pharmacies, hospitals, and medical clinics, must deliver high-quality services to function effectively. This is because the efficacy of treatments and the appropriateness of services are determined by service users. Effective quality management in the healthcare system must focus on their needs. As patient's expectations and needs change over time, effective quality management necessitates continual monitoring of patient growth and satisfaction with the service. This paper explains why achieving the greatest possible results for service users is critical for care facilities. The report goes on to examine team performance as well as continuous quality improvement management (CQI). Furthermore, the article assesses the processes and institutions that encourage service users rights, obligations, and heterogeneity in their environment.

Why Care Settings Must Achieve the Best Possible Outcomes for Service Users

In today's care contexts, healthcare personnel are under the growing burden to create and analyse the influence of care assistance on patient results. Quality counts in the delivery of care without a doubt, which is why an outcome-based protocol to care is so crucial. It's essential to maintain track of evidence regarding the care given and to set objectives that may be measured throughout the therapy process. Care environments must aspire for the best possible result for patients in their care for a variety of reasons, but the most significant one is because doing so ensures that the beneficiary of care is happier and that their well-being is prioritised. Healthcare practitioners, as well as service consumers and their families, can all attest to the improvement made thanks to the opportunity to see care being given in real-time. By recording the outcome at various phases of care delivery, caregivers may simply input information into the patient's care plans. This guarantees that the information is always current (World Health Organization, 2018). To get the best potential outcome for service users, managers must be able to recognise the strengths and limits of new service users immediately. Furthermore, in the healthcare setting, the outcome-based treatment promotes collaboration. When care providers, service users, and their families work together as a team, they may be able to make better care decisions and choices. As a result, by including service users in the definition of goals and the evaluation of treatment outcomes, methods tailored to their specific needs may be devised and executed.

The major purpose of care settings is to deliver positive outcomes for service users, as this ensures that the healthcare goal of life preservation is achieved. The patients who benefit the most from outcome-based treatment are, predictably, the ones who benefit the most. In other words, for care facilities, the major benefit of outcome-based healthcare is the establishment of a patient-centred vision that guides all they do. The greatest method for care settings to give the best possible care to their patients is to use outcome-based healthcare (Shaw et al. 2018). Transitioning to outcome-based care is the perfect path to restore a health system's capacity to offer the best possible care to its patients, but it requires a realistic and understandable roadmap to get there. Since an outcome, an outcome-based receptacle necessitates intentional and planned restructuring to satisfy both established and prospective expectations, as it provides a continual way for steering steady progress.

There are several effective strategies for improving patient familiarity, encompassing those that aim to decrease waiting times as well as those that attempt to lower expenses and increase quality (Mohr et al. 2017). Outcome-based care, on the other hand, reigns dominance since it places a premium on patient's preferences and needs. It helps health care networks and organisations to conduct on knowledge gained about what assistance customers value by including patients, other caretakers, and patient's acquaintance. By facilitating acquaintance and patient participation on advisory committees, for example, the policies can encompass the viewpoints of their service users into the facility's undertakings, allowing such families and patients immediate access to the decision-making processes of the health organisations (Kennedy et al. 2018). According to case studies, service users can join such councils to help with quality improvement activities in care settings, help create instructional programmes for care professionals, and help reorganise service delivery systems.

Furthermore, service consumers may be able to help hospitals improve their operations by suggesting new ways to make them more patient-centred and efficient. Working as a team decreases medical errors while also comprising patients in crucial protection endeavours, which is an important element of outcome-based care (Edelson et al. 2020). An outcome-based approach to care enhances treatment by containing assistance users in continuous growth activities and assessing significance from the viewpoint of patients. In a cancer centre where worked, for example, executives enabled patients and their families to participate in all decision-making processes and structures. After becoming placed on continual improvement teams, service users offered feedback on organisational policy, were invited to design instructional programmes for employees, and were tempted to attend sear committees (Altman et al. 2018). By conveying the goal to the organisation, the patient's families became an important component of the patient-centred treatment.

Advantages of Outcome-Based Care

Because result care is both proactive and reactive, care settings strive to provide the best possible outcome for the people they are caring for. The objective of healthcare in the United Kingdom has traditionally been to help people in recovering their health, rather than to be proactive. The objective of outcome-based care is to minimise disparities in how health systems treat various illnesses and diseases (Hlávka et al. 2019). As part of the process, accurate diagnostic and treatment algorithms aiming at improving patient results are required by all health care professionals. With this in mind, healthcare institutions are increasingly working to decrease inefficiencies and provide service consumers with high-quality care. While it is critical to improving the way health systems care for service users, outcome-based healthcare does not have this as its primary goal. This is because the approach contends that focusing just on eliminating inefficiencies in health systems is myopic.

Furthermore, outcome-based care supports a more proactive treatment strategy. According to Anderson and Caldwell, (2017) This involves creating a healthcare system that strives to keep people healthy by preventing illness. When an outcome-based care system is implemented proactively, care settings are required to address several critical concerns. They would need to know how to conserve the health of their clients, and how to preclude disease and, for example, keep people from hospitals. They also need to learn how to incorporate public health success in their business plan.

Another key topic is how they should work to promote community healthcare outside the confines of their system (Borgonovi et al. 2018). For health systems that wish to give the best possible service to their patients, adopting such proactive and reactive measures is important. In general, outcome-oriented therapy is quite beneficial. It offers several tools to contribute to building a brighter future for health care and transferring healthcare environments to care centres that are so much required. It also fosters social links and medical care, while improving confidence and a sense of security, and is a vital stimulus for transformation. The person who is the most important component of outcome-oriented treatment is individual therapy as his priority (Norlin et al 2018).

Challenges in Implementing Outcome-Based Care

The implementation of outcome-based healthcare in clinical practice faces several challenges. The first problem is a deficiency of analytical skills. Many healthcare systems have a lot of data, but they are not particularly proficient at analysing it. Outcome-based healthcare needs both data and analytics capabilities to make data relevant. Performance against result goals, as well as the efficacy of outcome improvement activities, must be assessed through systems. For health systems wanting to embrace outcome-based methods, the inability to analyse performance and processes owing to a lack of analytics is a roadblock (Krishna et al. 2019). The second issue is a lack of knowledge. In healthcare organisations, data must be available to front-line personnel. Given that data-driven insights are the only method to improve results, the systems will not be able to change or upgrade how they care for service customers unless frontline employees are armed with knowledge. Nurses and clinicians should be well-versed in the skills required to properly manage patients. On the other hand, some health systems are having trouble obtaining and making data accessible, prompting the need to aggregate data from various sections of the healthcare system (Hsu et al. 2019). Data collection and distribution need both technology and organisational infrastructure, both of which are lacking in most healthcare systems.

The third issue that arises when attempting to integrate outcome-based healthcare into clinical practice is a lack of organisational structure. Many healthcare systems are ill-equipped to deal with change. Michelsen et al. (2020) mentioned that as there is not enough organisation, health institutes are struggling to overcome the leniency of systems that do not adopt a therapeutic strategy focused on outcomes. Healthcare systems will not be able to move to this strategy unless healthcare practitioners provide practical techniques and a methodical roadmap for executing incremental adjustments in the proper direction (Er et al. 2019).

Success Stories of Outcome-Based Care

Despite the challenges, there have been some achievements with outcome-based healthcare. One outstanding success storey in Texas Children's Hospital. The hospital is a not-for-profit organisation, with its long-lasting success in shifting to outcome-based treatment, which has retained its position as a key children's hospital in the country (Korkeamäki et al. 2021). By placing your data in a company data warehouse, making targeted data analysis and creating interdisciplinary teams to conduct transformation, the hospital has seen substantial costs and quality benefits. As a result, the period of service at the hospital has fallen and its treatment quality has improved, resulting in operating savings of $80 million.

Case study of Outcome-Based Care

Wiltshire County Council has a one-of-a-kind approach to adult social services. The 'Help to Live at Home' service was formed by the council with the purpose of improving outcomes for service users. The service is founded on the concept of paying for healthcare depending on the outcomes of patients. The 'Help to Live at Home' programme departs from standard homecare by treating a patient in the privacy from their own residences. The service promotes a patient-centered methodology in which the patient is involved in the delivery of the service provider's care and support services. The service has facilitated collaboration among multiple participants, including Wiltshire County Council, the service provider, and other healthcare professionals. The use of consistent systems has been promoted as a result of unification, making it easier to track the development of patients. Furthermore, since patients are encouraged to function independently and have access to a wide variety of resources, it has contributed to reduces the expenses involved with providing long-term care. Funding service providers outcomes for patients has had a significant impact on the authority's expenditure on long-term care. The outcome-based service's efficacy suggests that it may be used in other fields of health to improve health care.

Performance of teams in managing Continuous Quality Improvement

CQI is a systems-based medical logistical process involving healthcare professionals and other staff in the design, delivery and management of continuous proactive care advances. CQI is a healthcare technology used to increase clinical treatment by reducing costs and variability while meeting regulatory standards and increasing the quality of customer service (Horwood et al. 2017). Healthcare stakeholders are ideally positioned to promote the CQI programmes and support them in such circumstances since they act as a strong agent of change and are at the forefront of health care. Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) administration in care environments calls for the involvement, contribution and performance of many healthcare teams. Strong and persistent leadership, work dedication, physical and written visibility, and the commitment of the health team are needed for significant quality improvement. If ongoing improvements to quality are to be accomplished, the hospital board must show commitment (Blouin and Tekian, 2018). For example, the certainty of resource demands related to the process of change requires senior health executives to perform a broad spectrum of work to guarantee that quality improvements are managed continuously.

To begin with, leaders should guarantee that sufficient financial resources are accessible by finding sources of financing for the procurement, testing and training of new equipment and technology. In addition, top health executives should make it possible and guarantee that key participants have sufficient time to engage fully in the transformation process through administrative assistance (Randhawa and Ahuja, 2017). They also should support the endeavour by providing it with time to work, because it takes time. Senior health managers should comprehend the influence of high-level choices on employee times and work processes when they try to modify the practice.

The leaders' essential duty is to recognise that manual quality improvement should be part of system-wide leadership development. In addition, health care executives must prioritise the safety of patients during all their activities and discussions to establish a formal framework for setting patient safety goals for their organisations. The CQI Treatment Model, which highlights first-aid care and advocates for health care and prevention via positive interactions across all stakeholders in the system including both care and patients, also supports this approach.

According to Mundiri, (2017) the care model also sets out a wide range of aspects to improve quality care: ensuring that care is effective and scientifically based; ensuring it is safe for service users; delivering it on time to avoid potentially harmful delays and waiting time; and guiding care decisions based on individual needs, preferences and values. It provides an effective and scientifically-based approach. The Treatment Model expects, importantly, that the quality of care would be improved by all members, including patients, of a team.

Maslow’s theory of needs and Continuous Quality Improvement

Moreover, Maslow's theory of wishes is compatible, highlighting the need for security and membership as fundamental human rights. According to this concept, everyone should have social connections, a sense of belonging, and familial bonds. As a result, to increase care quality, this relates to the patient's relationship with caregivers (Susanti et al. 2019). A well-designed healthcare facility with safety features that reduce medical errors enhances service user safety while also establishing the groundwork for better treatment quality. The contact between caregivers and patients is a critical element in determining service user's views and length of stay in the hospital. The way patients perceive the quality of treatment they receive and the degree of respect they are offered is a crucial component in their recovery (Noltemeyer et al. 2020).

The aspect of the Managing Continuous Quality Improvement

Despite dedicated and powerful leadership, some employees in health organisations may be unwilling to take part in quality management initiatives because previous attempts have been hindered by system issues, weak organisational links, lack of commitment and poor communication. However, the hurdles will be significantly reduced if healthcare organisations recognise the need to enhance quality (Bourke and Roper, 2017). Employees who manage the ongoing quality improvement are also better at changing processes, particularly when cost reductions are desired and the rules for layoffs are not in place to ensure job safety.

The continual development of the health environment demands the participation and commitment of all stakeholders. This should ensure that the funds invested to increase quality are understood by all stakeholders to pay for less unfavourable developments and improved efficiency. When responsibilities and expectations are clearly defined and teams are motivated, effective management of continual improvements in quality is feasible. According to Mizuno, (2020) considering the many perspectives of stakeholders, a key component of excellent quality improvement management is also important. Because of the inherent difference of opinion between health stakeholders and team members, attempts should be taken to get stakeholders to take part in the process early enough, get input and assess the potential for improved processes efficiently. Communication and information exchange between employees and stakeholders is also vital for the development of the goal and technique of the quality improvement and management project. It includes the establishment of open lines of communication between team members and at all levels of the organisation and enabling the successful engagement of families and patients in the discussion (Gunasekaran et al. 2019). Each performer should feel that they are a crucial component of the quality and management staff. This is in keeping with the PSDA paradigm, which emphasises cooperation and aims of change. The model outlines three major questions that the team must investigate. First and foremost, it must understand what it is trying to do Second, the team must understand how it will determine whether or not a modification has resulted in a quality improvement. Finally, under this paradigm, understanding the modifications that must be made to make gains is critical. Teams utilise the PSDA framework to quickly cycle through possible possibilities, put them into action quickly, and evaluate them regularly. Important parts of the cycle include creating a team of experts who can identify areas that need to be addressed (Ferrell et al. 2018).

The efficacy of the techniques is dependent on a motivated and empowered team. When the duty of improving care quality is delegated to diverse teams that may evaluate data and seek change, a favourable outcome is probable. The team should include essential stakeholders and senior executives, as well as the most competent staff (Wells et al. 2018). Specific stakeholders, like physicians and nurses, must be included and encouraged to formulate changes and address difficulties within divisions to assure growth in the quality of treatment. Because implementing and monitoring quality programmes involves major changes in clinician's daily work, it's important to assess front-line staff's willingness and attitude to make the required changes.

Implementing procedures that may be customised to the necessities of service users and each department, based on organisational lineage, training, and knowledge, is an important part of managing continuous quality improvement. The makeup of the healthcare team, as well as the team leaders, becomes essential in this respect. To achieve the aim of successful management of continuous quality improvement, team leaders should emphasise efforts to help in the creation and enhancement of relationships (Kibourne et al. 2018). Team leaders must be dedicated to the project and willing to invest a substantial portion of time in it. The justification for this is that the perception of the programme to manage continuous quality improvement in health care depends on the presence of renowned leaders. Furthermore, multidisciplinary teams must be aware of the many stages of quality improvement, as well as the multiple opportunities for error, so that they can prioritise the most essential areas to enhance in a complex healthcare environment.

Teamwork techniques have a major significance on continuous quality improvement in healthcare because they allow components of the team to establish connections across departments. To manage Continuous Quality Improvement in care environments, various healthcare team members must be engaged, contribute, and perform (Kaminski et al. 2017). As a result, team development must be prioritised to effectively manage ongoing quality improvement in care. Importantly, progress should be checked at least once a month utilising outcome data analysis. For team success, communication and constructive teamwork, data exchange, and cooperation across diverse hospital departments and stakeholders are critical. All stakeholder's involvement and participation are also critical in the management of continuous quality improvement in the healthcare environment.

Strategies to promote the rights, responsibilities, and diversity of service users

Service users should be able to utilise and exercise their rights and duties in health and social care settings while making use of their diversity. Regardless of their circumstances, service users must have access to and assistance for the care they need. Thus, social and medical staff are responsible and required to advocate and provide a diverse, equitable and tailor-made service for diversity and equality in all aspects of their job. The provision of high quality social and health services requires diversity and equality (Abayneh et al. 2017). Effective practise therefore requires that those ideals are promoted, prioritised and promoted. A medical and social worker must assure that patients and other service users are fairly and equitably treated and that the decency and respect of all service users are applied. In further words, variety and equality should not be regarded as compensation when it comes to service delivery. Rather, it should be regarded as a necessary component of service planning. As a result, all leaders in the social and health care sectors should promote equality and diversity in all aspects of their operations (Waltz et al. 2019). Organizing assistance and care packages that are tailored to the requirements of individual service users, eliminating inequity, and recognising diversity are all part of this process. The Common Core Strategic Principles are also encouraged to be utilised as a model or tool by social and health care providers to ensure that diversity and equality are prioritised in all decisions. It's crucial to be able to promote equality and diversity in the workplace. In today's culture, social and health care providers must include diversity into their missions to offer great service and efficiently manage employees. Gender, language, age, and ethnicity are not the only factors to consider in this respect. It considers everything that makes people unique, including ethics, money, personal beliefs, education, and work style. If service providers and customers accept and encourage diversity, they will develop considerable fluency in each other's cultural and social references. To foster diversity in such situations, it should be a team effort rather than a one-person commitment. The mission statement, company principles, regulations, and policies should all reflect the organization's diversity goals, which should be communicated to all workers (McFadden et al. 2018). Importantly, displaying the diversity policy can serve to reiterate the staff's purpose and standards while also conveying the intents of the healthcare professionals to their patients. As a result, the ethos of the company has been developed as one of inclusion. Employees must own up to and create a clear set of medium- and short-term goals to demonstrate their commitment to diversity.

The Gibbs Reflective Model

Gibb's Reflective Model is a six-step structured procedure for analysing structures and systems that Gibb developed. The explanation is the first stage. It involves discussing the system's or structure's history. Providing specifics on the factors leading to the structure or structure's presence, as well as the consequence of their presence, is part of background knowledge. The second phase is feelings, which allows people to voice their ideas regarding the system or structure. The situation must be assessed in the third phase. It enables the benefits and downsides of the system or organisation to be presented. The analysis phase is strongly related to the fourth step, analysis. The analysis helps you to assess the influence of the system or structure. The fifth step is the finale. It allows you to offer suggestions for how the system or organisation may have done things differently in order to obtain better results. The final phase is the strategic plan. The strategy discusses how things could have been done differently, as well as the system changes that are required.

Policies to promote the rights, responsibilities, and diversity of service users

To properly implement the policies, procedures and ideas in their everyday life, all health and social health care employees need a sound grasp. This is because it is exceedingly difficult to promote diversity and equality in the industry without a thorough knowledge of the principles. Diversity and equality may be effectively encouraged in several ways. A diversity and equality policy is the first approach (Ledoux et al 2018). The second key tactic is to guarantee that the policy is read and understood by all personnel. As part of their orientation employees should be offered the option to complete training on diversity and equal opportunities and regular refresher training should be provided to reflect legal changes. Finally, personalised customised care plans are a key technique.

In all aspects of design, planning, monitoring, evaluation and audit, the social and health care policy should emphasise the importance of service users' involvement (Helberger et al. 2018). A vision for service users should be included in the patient charter which includes dignity, privacy, cultural and religious values, care quality and continuity of treatment.

Other rights should include information about cancellations, wait times, and timely response to any sort of complaint. According to the vision, patients and service users should have more say in health care delivery as well as cultural and organisational improvements. There should also be significant institutions, norms, and laws in place to empower service customers. Importantly, the care act should include family and patient participation in the creation, planning, and decision-making process of problems affecting service operations (MacLachlan et al. 2018). Through consultation, service users should be included in the decision-making process, which includes providing them with information about proposed changes, service planning, and operational decisions.

Systems to promote the rights, responsibilities and diversity of service users

Active action on empowering, protecting and improving services should be taken in social and healthcare environments to promote the rights, responsibilities and variety of service users. Patient-centred services of quality, empowerment, participation and patient rights should be emphasised in policies and laws. The legal and legislative focus should be on legal entities to preserve the quality of service and the rights of human patients and empowerment, both in the social and in the healthcare environment (Warr et al. 2017). Patients, individual, human, and social rights, as well as health quality, accessibility, diversity, and equality, must all be addressed, while the relationship between service consumers and service providers must be balanced. Information and complaints, as well as the patients' choice and voice, are all components of patients' rights that must be addressed in the policy. While these aspects are similar, they may differ in terms of execution, emphasis, and concentration. As a result, choice, voice, knowledge, and complaint can take on different shapes and have different meanings in various social and healthcare contexts (Gibson et al. 2017). Regardless of differences, they should all try to safeguard and respect the rights and responsibilities of service users at all times.

Conclusion

The benefit of results-oriented treatment cannot be overestimated. It offers a range of tools that assist develop a more effective future in care and advance towards the much-needed care of individuals in health care settings. Results-based care is also an important stimulus for change since it promotes social connectivity and improves public health by strengthening trust and security. CQI is used in healthcare settings to increase clinical treatment by decreasing costs and reducing unpredictability, while also increasing the quality of customer service. Social and medical workers, in particular, must support and give a diversified, fair and tailor-made service to diversity and equality in all aspects of their job.

Continue your exploration of Quality Improvement Safety in Care with our related content.

References

Abayneh, S., Lempp, H., Alem, A., Alemayehu, D., Eshetu, T., Lund, C., Semrau, M., Thornicroft, G. and Hanlon, C., 2017. Service user involvement in mental health system strengthening in a rural African setting: qualitative study. BMC psychiatry, 17(1), pp.1-14.

Altman, M., Huang, T.T. and Breland, J.Y., 2018. Peer reviewed: Design thinking in health care. Preventing Chronic Disease, 15.

Anderson, V. and Caldwell, C., 2017. Transformative ethics and trust: the keys to a competitive advantage. Competitive Advantage: Strategies Management, and Performance, NOVA Publishing, New York, NY, pp.133-146.

Blouin, D. and Tekian, A., 2018. Accreditation of medical education programs: moving from student outcomes to continuous quality improvement measures. Academic Medicine, 93(3), pp.377-383.

Borgonovi, E., Anessi-Pessina, E. and Bianchi, C. eds., 2018. Outcome-based performance management in the public sector. Cham: Springer.

Bourke, J. and Roper, S., 2017. Innovation, quality management and learning: Short-term and longer-term effects. Research Policy, 46(8), pp.1505-1518.

Edelson, D.P., Sasson, C., Chan, P.S., Atkins, D.L., Aziz, K., Becker, L.B., Berg, R.A., Bradley, S.M., Brooks, S.C., Cheng, A. and Escobedo, M., 2020. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19: from the emergency cardiovascular care committee and get with the guidelines-resuscitation adult and pediatric task forces of the American Heart Association. Circulation, 141(25), pp.e933-e943.

Er, H.M., Nadarajah, V.D., Chen, Y.S., Misra, S., Perera, J., Ravindranath, S. and Hla, Y.Y., 2019. Twelve tips for institutional approach to outcome-based education in health professions programmes. Medical teacher, pp.1-6.

Ferrell, B.R., Twaddle, M.L., Melnick, A. and Meier, D.E., 2018. National consensus project clinical practice guidelines for quality palliative care guidelines. Journal of palliative medicine, 21(12), pp.1684-1689.

Gibson, A.N., Chancellor, R.L., Cooke, N.A., Dahlen, S.P., Lee, S.A. and Shorish, Y.L., 2017. Libraries on the frontlines: Neutrality and social justice. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal.

Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Ngai, W.T.E., 2019. Quality management in the 21st century enterprises: Research pathway towards Industry 4.0.

Helberger, N., Pierson, J. and Poell, T., 2018. Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The information society, 34(1), pp.1-14.

Hlávka, J.P., Lin, P.J. and Neumann, P.J., 2019. Outcome measures for oncology alternative payment models: practical considerations and recommendations. The American journal of managed care, 25(12), pp.e403-e409.

Horwood, C., Butler, L., Barker, P., Phakathi, S., Haskins, L., Grant, M., Mntambo, N. and Rollins, N., 2017. A continuous quality improvement intervention to improve the effectiveness of community health workers providing care to mothers and children: a cluster randomised controlled trial in South Africa. Human resources for health, 15(1), pp.1-11.

Hsu, L.L., Ueng, R.S. and Hsieh, S.I., 2019. An outcome-based educational intervention to improve nursing students’ knowledge and competencies in oncology nursing: a randomized controlled Trial. Contemporary nurse, 55(4-5), pp.391-407.

Kaminski, M.F., Thomas-Gibson, S., Bugajski, M., Bretthauer, M., Rees, C.J., Dekker, E., Hoff, G., Jover, R., Suchanek, S., Ferlitsch, M. and Anderson, J., 2017. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European gastroenterology journal, 5(3), pp.309-334.

Kennedy, H.P., Cheyney, M., Dahlen, H.G., Downe, S., Foureur, M.J., Homer, C.S., Jefford, E., McFadden, A., Michel‐Schuldt, M., Sandall, J. and Soltani, H., 2018. Asking different questions: a call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. Birth, 45(3), pp.222-231

Kilbourne, A.M., Beck, K., Spaeth‐Rublee, B., Ramanuj, P., O'Brien, R.W., Tomoyasu, N. and Pincus, H.A., 2018. Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective. World psychiatry, 17(1), pp.30-38.

Korkeamäki, L., Kohtamäki, M. and Parida, V., 2021. Worth the risk? The profit impact of outcome-based service offerings for manufacturing firms. Journal of Business Research, 131, pp.92-102.

Krishna, R., Valleru, J. and Smith, W., 2019. Implementing outcome-based care in pediatric psychiatry: early results and overcoming barriers. Pediatric quality & safety, 4(1).

Ledoux, C., Pilot, E., Diaz, E. and Krafft, T., 2018. Migrants’ access to healthcare services within the European Union: a content analysis of policy documents in Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Globalization and health, 14(1), pp.1-11.

MacLachlan, M., Banes, D., Bell, D., Borg, J., Donnelly, B., Fembek, M., Ghosh, R., Gowran, R.J., Hannay, E., Hiscock, D. and Hoogerwerf, E.J., 2018. Assistive technology policy: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(5), pp.454-466.

McFadden, A., Siebelt, L., Gavine, A., Atkin, K., Bell, K., Innes, N., Jones, H., Jackson, C., Haggi, H. and MacGillivray, S., 2018. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller access to and engagement with health services: a systematic review. The European Journal of Public Health, 28(1), pp.74-81.

Michelsen, S., Nachi, S., Van Dyck, W., Simoens, S. and Huys, I., 2020. Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation of Outcome-Based Spread Payments for High-Cost, One-Shot Curative Therapies. Frontiers in pharmacology, 11.