Assessing quality of medical care: modern methods and prospects for improvement

INTRODUCTION. Assessment of the quality of medical care is the most important element of modern healthcare aimed at improving the effectiveness of treatment, patient satisfaction and ensuring the safety of medical services. The development of innovative technologies, the need to standardize approaches to diagnosis and therapy require improvement of existing methods of assessment.

OBJECTIVE. Analyze existing methods for assessing the quality of medical care, identify their limitations and factors affecting the accuracy and objectivity of the assessment, and develop recommendations for their improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study is based on the analysis of scientific publications presented in international databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) and the Russian scientific electronic resource eLIBRARY.RU. Key words used: assessment of the quality of medical care, patient satisfaction, quality of life assessment scales. The works published in the period from 2010 to 2024 were included. The methods of content analysis, comparative analysis and statistical data processing were used.

RESULTS. The analysis showed that the most common model for assessing the quality of medical care is the Donnabedien model, which includes three key components: structure, process and outcome. An important role is played by standardized quality of life assessment scales (SF-36, EQ-5D, WHOQOL-BREF), which provide a comprehensive indicator of the impact of medical interventions on patients. It is shown that the key indicators are patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, accessibility and safety of medical services.

DISCUSSION. Current trends in assessing the quality of care include an increased emphasis on the integration of digital technologies, big data analysis, the use of electronic medical records and clinical decision support systems. There are revealed problems related to the subjectivity of conclusions, the need for cultural adaptation of quality of life assessment scales and the variability of applied methodologies in different countries.

CONCLUSION. Improvement of the system for assessing the quality of medical care requires a comprehensive approach, including standardization of methods, adaptation of quality of life assessment scales, integration of digital technologies and increased attention to patient safety. The study results can be used to optimize the quality management of medical services and develop effective strategies to improve patient satisfaction.

1. Nellhaus E. M., Davies T. H. Evolution of Clinical Trials throughout History. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2011, Vol. 2, Iss. 2, p. 72.

2. Lachin J. M., Matts J. P., Wei L. J. Randomization in clinical trials: Conclusions and Recommendations. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1988, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 365–374.

3. Georgetown Law Library staff. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law Research Guide. FDA. PMA Historical Background. Updated Apr. 2009, 26.

4. The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial: A Reappraisal. JAMA, 1996, Vol. 276, No. 20, pp. 27.

5. O’Reilly J. Jurisdiction to decide an agency's own jurisdiction: The forgotten tale of the Hynson quartet. Administrative Law Review, 2006, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 829–843.

6. Emanuel E. J., Miller F. G. The Ethics of Research on Human Subjects: A Case-based Approach. New Engl. J. Med., 2001, Vol. 345, No. 15, pp. 1135–1139. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200110113451507.

7. Miller F. G., Brody H. A critique of the declaration of Helsinki. New Engl. J. Med., 2003, Vol. 348, No. 21, pp. 2070–2074.

8. Dyer C. WMA Updates Declaration of Helsinki on Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. British Medical Journal, 2013, p. 347.

9. Bull J. P. A study of the history and principles of clinical therapeutic trials. Ph. D. thesis, Univ. of Cambridge, UK, 1951.

10. Medical Research Council. Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Br. Med. J. 1948, Vol. 2, pp. 769–782.

11. Reverby S. M. Listening to narratives from the Tuskegee syphilis study. Lancet, 2011, Vol. 377, No. 9778, pp. 1646–1647.

12. Corbie-Smith G., Thomas S. B., Williams M. V., Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans towards participating in medical research. J. Gen. Intern. Med., 1999, Vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 537–546.

13. Azeka E., Fregni F., Oler Jr J. The Past, Present, and Future of Clinical Research. Clinics, 2011, Vol. 66, Suppl. 1, pp. 9312.

14. Braunstein J. B., McKinney W. M., Zuckerman R. H., Cowan M. S., Lubitz J. D., Anderson G. F. Race, Medical Researcher Distrust, Perceived Harm, and Willingness to Participate in Cardiovascular Prevention Trials. Medicine, 2008, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp. 1–9.

15. Caldwell J. G., Price E. V., Jackson B. A., Beckwith W. B., Dowse R. C., Adams R. L. Aortic Regurgitation in the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1973, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 187–194.

16. Hiltner S. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study under review. Christian Century, 1973, Vol. 90, No. 43, pp. 174–1176.

17. Burley D. M., Dennison T. C., Harrison W. Clinical Experience With a New Sedative Drug. Practitioner, 1959, Vol. 183, pp. 57–61.

18. Lasagna L. Thalidomide: A New Nonbarbiturate Sleep Inducing Drug. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1960, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 627–631.

19. Ghoreishi K. Thalidomine. In: Encyclopedia of Toxicology. Ed. by Paul Bossert. Burlington (VT): Academic Press, 2014, pp. 523–526.

20. Rice E. Dr. Frances Kelsey. Turning the Thalidomide Tragedy Into Food and Drug Administration Reform. Praeger Publishers, Westport CT, USA, 2007, 800 pp.

21. Kelsey F. O. Inside Story of a Medical Tragedy. U.S. News & World Report, 1962, Vol. 53, No. 13, pp. 54–55.

22. Fullerton P. M., Kremer M. Neuropathy After Intake of Thalidomide (Distaval). British Medical Journal, 1961, Vol. 2, No. 5256, pp. 855–858.

23. Mintz M. By Prescription Only. Second Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967, 20 p.

24. Cuerda-Galindo E., Sierra-Valenti X., González-López E., López-Muñoz F. Syphilis and Human Experimentation From World War II to the Present: A Historical Perspective and Reflections on Ethics. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas, 2014, Vol. 105, No. 9, pp. 847–853.

25. Jones J. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment – a Tragedy of Race and Medicine. The Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 1981.

26. Gjestland T. The Oslo Study of Untreated Syphilis; An Epidemiological Investigation of the Natural Course of the Syphilitic Infection Based Upon a Restudy of the Boeck-Bruusgaard Material. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 1955, Vol. 35, Suppl. 34, pp. 3–368.

27. Heller J. Syphilis Victims in U.S. Study Went Untreated for 40 Years: Syphilis Victims Got No Therapy. Associated Press: New York Times, 1972.

28. Carmack H. J., Bates B. R., Harter L. M. Narrative Constructions of Health Care Issues and Policies: The Case of President Clinton's Apology-by-Proxy for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Journal of Medical Humanities, 2008, Vol. 29, No 2, pp. 89–109.

29. Edmundson W. F., Ackerman J. H., Gutierrez-Salinas E. Study of the TPI Test in Clinical Syphilis. Part I: Untreated Early Symptomatic Syphilis. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 1954, Vol. 70, №. 3, pp. 298–301.

30. Olansky S., Simpson L., Schuman S. H. Environmental Factors in the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis. Public Health Rep., 1954, Vol. 69, No 7, pp. 691–698.

31. Peters J. J., Peers J. H., Olansky S. Untreated Syphilis in the Male Negro: Pathologic Findings in Syphilitic and Non syphilitic Patients. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1955, Vol. 1, Suppl. 2, pp. 127–148.

32. Schuman S. H., Olansky S., Rivers E. Untreated Syphilis in the Male Negro: Background and Current Status of Patients in the Tuskegee Study. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1955, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 543–558.

33. Katz R. V., Kegeles S. S., Kressin N. R. The Tuskegee Legacy Project: Willingness of Minorities to Participate in Biomedical Research. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 2006, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 698–715.

34. Yoon C. Families emerge as silent victims of Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Associated Press: New York Times, 1997.

35. Stuart H. History of Medical Ethics. Oxford: Elsevier, 1998, Vol. 3, pp. 165–175.

36. Van Valey T. Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct in Social and Behavioral Research. Oxford: Elsevier, 2015, pp. 37–43.

37. Weindling P. Nazi Medicine and the Nuremberg Trials. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

38. Lopez-Munoz F., Alamo C., Garcia-Garcia P. The Role of Psychopharmacology in the Medical Abuses of the Third Reich: From Euthanasia Programmes to Human Experimentation. Brain Res. Bull., 2008, Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 388–403.

39. Roelcke V. Nazi Medicine and Research on Human Beings. Lancet, 2004, Vol. 364, Suppl. 1, pp. 6–7.

40. Roelcke V., Maio G. Twentieth-Century Ethics of Human Subjects Research. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004.

41. Guraya S. Y., London N. J. M., Guraya S. S. Ethics in Medical Research. J. Microsc. Ultrastruct., 2014, Vol. 2, Supl. 4, pp. 121–126.

42. Lenz W., Knapp K. Thalidomide Embryopathy. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 1962, Vol. 5, pp. 100–105.

43. National Institutes of Health. RFA-RM-07-007: Institutional Clinical and Translational Science Award (U54). 2007.

44. NIH. A Short History of the National Institutes of Health, History of Drug Regulation in the United States, 1906–2006. FDA, 2012, pp. 3.

45. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Doctors Trial: The Medical Case of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings. Washington, DC, USA, 2012.

46. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Sub jects, 2018.

47. Grady C. Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges. Chest, 2015, Vol. 148, No. 5, pp. 1148–1155. doi:10.1378/chest.15-0706.

48. US Government Accountability Office. Federal Control of New Drug Testing Is Not Adequately Protecting Human Test Subjects and the Public. HRD-76–96, 1976.

49. ICH E6 (R2). Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. 2016.

50. European Commission. Directive 2001/20/EC, Clinical Trials. Official Journal of the European Union, 2001.

51. ISO 14155:2011. Clinical Investigation of Medical Devices for Human Subjects – Good Clinical Practice. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2011.

52. Human Subject Protection; Foreign Clinical Studies Not Conducted Under an Investigational New Drug Application – Proposed Rule. Government Publishing Office: Federal Register, 2004, Vol. 69, pp. 112–114.

53. Rules and Regulations, Human Subject Protection; Foreign Clinical Studies Not Conducted Under an Investigational New Drug Application, Final Rule. Government Publishing Office: Federal Register, 2008, Vol. 73, p. 82.

54. World Health Organization. Handbook for Good Clinical Research Practice, 2005. ISBN 92 4 159392 X.