This framework introduces three diagnostic improvement archetypes that health systems can use to select and sequence interventions based on local failure points, operational feasibility, and reimbursement context, and offers a pragmatic approach for advancing diagnostic excellence across diverse care delivery settings.
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Diagnostic error is common, harmful, and costly, yet most health systems lack active interventions to improve diagnostic safety. This study aimed to identify scalable care models that advance diagnostic excellence while reducing costs for healthcare systems across diverse delivery and reimbursement environments. Methods We employed a multi-method care model development framework that integrated: (1) a literature review of 1,632 sources, (2) 19 semi-structured expert interviews, (3) in-depth analysis of four exemplar programs, and (4) four iterative refinement cycles with a 12-member cross-institutional expert panel. Candidate interventions were evaluated by diagnostic failure points, potential net cost savings, operational feasibility, stakeholder value alignment, and payment-model fit. Results We identified three highest value care model archetypes. (1) Diagnostic safety nets identify patients with abnormal findings lacking appropriate follow-up and re-engage them before harm escalates. (2) Optimized navigation routes patients to the right level of care through risk stratification and selective specialist input. (3) Decision support strengthens diagnostic reasoning at the point of care through evidence-based diagnostic tools. These archetypes differed in infrastructure requirements and financial attractiveness across payment models, with diagnostic safety nets most broadly attractive across both fee-for-service and risk-bearing environments. Conclusions This framework introduces three diagnostic improvement archetypes that health systems can use to select and sequence interventions based on local failure points, operational feasibility, and reimbursement context. By linking intervention choice to real-world implementation conditions, the framework offers a pragmatic approach for advancing diagnostic excellence across diverse care delivery settings.
Evaluating the impact of healthcare technology integration on workforce-related outcomes in middle-income countries and assessing evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework concluded that implementation success appears highly dependent on infrastruct...
Although the CERC recommendations represent state-of-the-art, authoritative advice, it is believed there are 3 other interventions that have comparable financial and clinical impact profiles: 1 – Finding and learning from diagnostic errors; 2 – Improving clinical reasoning; and 3 – Promoting patient engagement.
Andrew P. J. Olson, C. Berdahl, T. Shimizu et al.· Diagnosis· 0 citations
Greater taxonomy standardization, improved reporting transparency, and stronger alignment with quality improvement and behavioural change frameworks are needed to support systematic monitoring and subsequent reductions in LVC across healthcare systems.
Luc Saulnier, Daniele Franzoi, Anne Gulbech Ording et al.· Open Research Europe· 0 citations
To analyze how and under what conditions Standardized Therapeutic Protocols can serve as a medico-economic lever to enhance care relevance and contain health expenditures, a structured literature review was conducted, complemented by a comparative analysis of four implementation models.
The historical development and conceptual relationships among EBM, patient safety, QI, LHS, and VBHC are examined, and an integrated framework for understanding their complementary roles in healthcare quality is proposed.
Takehiro Okabayashi, R. Inada, T. Imai et al.· Journal of Evaluation In Cli...· 0 citations
This study introduces a comprehensive value framework tailored to artificial intelligence in healthcare, extending evaluation beyond narrow cost–outcome ratios and provides researchers with clear dimensions for developing indicators and evaluation tools for responsible AI use in health services.
A. Alsharif· Healthcare· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.