Abstracts by keywords: Methods paper IQTIG
The method paper from the Institute for Quality and Transparency in Health Care (IQTIG), which is now available in a first draft, is an important document for the discussion of the topic in the coming years. However, this paper gives rise to serious criticism on numerous levels. In its basic assumptions, it remains tied to a traditional understanding of quality that is focused on the ex post quality control of results. Elements of continuous quality improvement with the integration of the quality concept into the process of service provision at the institutional and system level have largely been pushed into the background. In the paternalistic tradition, the concept of patient-centeredness is one-sidedly related to the quality of results; the quality dimensions discussed are reduced to questions of legitimacy and statistical evaluability. The concept of linear measurement of quality through quality indicators is represented. Contrary to the common international and health care research opinion, indicators are not used as highly sensitive monitoring instruments, but as classic measuring instruments that are simultaneously used to record quality problems and for identification of “excellent” quality. The terms reliability and validity of indicators are not used accurately; it is even claimed that there is no meaningful application of the term validity to quality indicators. In addition, there are other technical errors, so indicators are assigned an evaluation function and the term quality assurance is not differentiated from the term quality improvement and from instruments such as pay for performance.