Article Text
Abstract
In this paper, we argue that there are important ethical questions about healthcare improvement which are underexplored. We start by drawing on two existing literatures: first, the prevailing, primarily governance-oriented, application of ethics to healthcare ‘quality improvement’ (QI), and second, the application of QI to healthcare ethics. We show that these are insufficient for ethical analysis of healthcare improvement. In pursuit of a broader agenda for an ethics of healthcare improvement, we note that QI and ethics can, in some respects, be treated as closely related concerns and not simply as externally related agendas. To support our argument, we explore the gap between ‘quality’ and ‘ethics’ discourses and ask about the possible differences between ‘good quality healthcare’ and ‘good healthcare’. We suggest that the word ‘quality’ both adds to and subtracts from the idea of ‘good healthcare’, and in particular that the technicist inflection of quality discourses needs to be set in the context of broader conceptualisations of healthcare improvement. We introduce the distinction between quality as a measurable property and quality as an evaluative judgement, suggesting that a core, but neglected, question for an ethics of healthcare improvement is striking the balance between these two conceptions of quality.
- healthcare improvement
- quality
- ethics
- ethics quality
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors All authors contributed to the development and drafting of this article.
Funding This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (209811).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Aesthetics for everyday quality: one way to enrich healthcare improvement debates
- Physicians’ clinical experience and its association with healthcare quality: a systematised review
- The NHS and market forces in healthcare: the need for organisational ethics
- How, and under what contexts, do academic–practice partnerships collaborate to implement healthcare improvement education into preregistration nursing curriculums: a realist review protocol
- Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature
- When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge
- Determining feasibility of incorporating consumer engagement into implementation activities: study protocol of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type II pilot
- Ethical considerations in quality improvement: key questions and a practical guide
- A cluster-randomised quality improvement study to improve two inpatient stroke quality indicators
- Identifying and resolving the frustrations of reviewing the improvement literature: The experiences of two improvement researchers