View Categories

High-Value Care and Patient Safety

35 min read

Introduction #

High-value care represents a fundamental principle in modern healthcare delivery, emphasizing the optimization of patient outcomes while minimizing unnecessary costs and potential harms [1]. This concept integrates quality improvement, patient safety, and cost-consciousness into clinical decision-making, forming a cornerstone of health systems science education and practice [2]. Patient safety, defined as the prevention of harm to patients during healthcare delivery, constitutes an essential component of high-value care, as medical errors and adverse events generate substantial human suffering and economic burden [3]. The intersection of high-value care and patient safety reflects a paradigm shift from volume-based to value-based healthcare, requiring clinicians to balance diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic efficacy, resource stewardship, and harm prevention [4].

Principles of High-Value Care #

High-value care encompasses several core principles that guide clinical decision-making and healthcare delivery. The primary tenet involves maximizing patient benefit while minimizing both financial costs and potential harms, creating a framework where quality and efficiency coexist [5]. This approach requires clinicians to critically evaluate the benefits, harms, and costs of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, moving beyond reflexive ordering of tests and treatments [6]. Evidence-based medicine serves as the foundation for high-value care, ensuring that clinical decisions derive from the best available research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values [7]. Shared decision-making represents another critical principle, engaging patients as active participants in their care by discussing treatment options, potential outcomes, and personal preferences [8]. Cost-consciousness in clinical practice involves understanding the financial implications of medical decisions without compromising quality, recognizing that healthcare resources are finite and must be allocated judiciously [9].

Patient Safety Fundamentals #

Patient safety evolved as a distinct discipline following the landmark Institute of Medicine report “To Err Is Human,” which revealed that medical errors caused thousands of preventable deaths annually in the United States [10]. The science of patient safety draws from multiple disciplines including human factors engineering, systems thinking, and quality improvement methodology to create safer healthcare environments [11]. Understanding error types and their contributing factors remains essential for developing effective prevention strategies, with errors classified as active failures (individual mistakes) or latent conditions (system-level vulnerabilities) [12]. Healthcare organizations have increasingly adopted a systems approach to safety, recognizing that most errors result from flawed processes rather than individual incompetence or negligence [13]. This perspective shift emphasizes creating multiple layers of defense, implementing fail-safes, and designing systems that anticipate and mitigate human error [14].

Common Patient Safety Threats #

Healthcare delivery involves numerous potential threats to patient safety that clinicians must recognize and address. Medication errors represent one of the most common safety concerns, occurring at various stages including prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, and administration [15]. These errors may result from similar medication names, unclear handwriting, calculation mistakes, or inadequate communication among healthcare team members [16]. Healthcare-associated infections constitute another significant safety threat, with catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line-associated bloodstream infections, surgical site infections, and ventilator-associated pneumonia causing substantial morbidity and mortality [17]. Diagnostic errors, defined as missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses, affect an estimated 12 million adults in the United States annually and often result from cognitive biases, inadequate clinical reasoning, or system failures [18]. Surgical complications and wrong-site surgery, though less frequent, represent potentially catastrophic safety failures that demand rigorous verification procedures and standardized protocols [19]. Communication failures during care transitions, including hospital admissions, transfers, and discharges, frequently lead to medication discrepancies, missed follow-up, and adverse events [20].

Culture of Safety #

Establishing a culture of safety within healthcare organizations represents a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable patient safety improvements. A robust safety culture manifests through shared values, beliefs, and behavioral norms that prioritize safety above competing goals such as efficiency or productivity [21]. Leadership commitment to safety sets the organizational tone, with executives and managers actively promoting transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement [22]. Just culture principles balance accountability with learning, distinguishing between human error (which requires system redesign), at-risk behavior (requiring coaching), and reckless behavior (warranting disciplinary action) [23]. This approach encourages reporting of errors and near-misses without fear of punishment, enabling organizations to identify hazards and implement preventive measures [24]. Psychological safety, the shared belief that team members can speak up about concerns without fear of humiliation or retribution, facilitates open communication and error disclosure [25]. Regular safety assessments using validated instruments such as the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire help organizations measure safety culture and track improvement efforts [26].

Systems-Based Approaches to Safety #

Modern patient safety relies on systems-based strategies that reduce reliance on individual vigilance and create environments resistant to error. Standardization through protocols, checklists, and clinical pathways decreases practice variation and ensures consistent application of evidence-based interventions [27]. The surgical safety checklist, for example, has demonstrated significant reductions in complications and mortality across diverse healthcare settings [28]. Forcing functions and constraints represent design features that prevent errors by making incorrect actions impossible or difficult to perform, such as incompatible connectors for different types of intravenous medications [29]. Redundancy and double-check systems create multiple opportunities to detect errors before they reach patients, though they must be implemented thoughtfully to avoid complacency and false confidence [30]. Information technology, including electronic health records, computerized provider order entry, and clinical decision support systems, offers powerful tools for error prevention through automated checks, alerts, and reminders [31]. However, technology implementation requires careful attention to workflow integration and usability to avoid introducing new sources of error [32].

Error Disclosure and Transparency #

Transparent communication following adverse events represents both an ethical obligation and a practical strategy for maintaining trust and facilitating learning. Healthcare professionals should disclose harmful errors to patients and families promptly, expressing empathy, explaining what happened, describing prevention efforts, and offering apologies when appropriate [33]. Disclosure conversations require specific communication skills including active listening, emotional intelligence, and the ability to manage uncertainty and distress [34]. Organizational policies should support clinicians in disclosure situations, providing training, guidance, and institutional backing rather than leaving practitioners to navigate these difficult conversations alone [35]. Transparent reporting systems enable healthcare organizations to aggregate safety data, identify patterns, and implement system-wide improvements [36]. Some institutions have adopted communication and resolution programs that proactively disclose events, investigate causes, and offer appropriate compensation, demonstrating reduced litigation costs and improved patient satisfaction [37].

Reducing Diagnostic Errors #

Diagnostic errors pose unique challenges to patient safety due to their complex etiology involving cognitive, system, and patient-related factors. Cognitive biases such as premature closure (accepting an initial diagnosis without considering alternatives), anchoring (fixating on initial impressions), and availability bias (overestimating the likelihood of recently encountered conditions) contribute substantially to diagnostic mistakes [38]. Metacognition and reflective practice help clinicians recognize their own thinking patterns and potential biases, creating opportunities for error correction [39]. Diagnostic time-outs and structured reflection during complex cases encourage systematic consideration of alternative diagnoses and evidence evaluation [40]. Enhanced communication between clinicians and patients improves diagnostic accuracy by ensuring complete information gathering and mutual understanding of symptoms and concerns [41]. Follow-up systems that track test results, monitor patient progress, and close communication loops prevent delayed diagnoses resulting from missed information [42]. Diagnostic management teams and safety rounds provide forums for discussing challenging cases and learning from diagnostic errors in a non-punitive environment [43].

Medication Safety Strategies #

Comprehensive medication safety requires interventions spanning the entire medication use process from prescribing through administration and monitoring. Computerized provider order entry with clinical decision support reduces prescribing errors by eliminating handwriting interpretation, checking for drug interactions and allergies, and suggesting appropriate dosing [44]. However, alert fatigue from excessive notifications can lead to override behavior, necessitating careful optimization of decision support systems [45]. Pharmacist integration into patient care teams enables medication review, dosing recommendations, and patient counseling, demonstrating reductions in adverse drug events [46]. Barcode medication administration technology verifies the right patient, right drug, right dose, right route, and right time, creating a final safety check before medication administration [47]. High-alert medications such as anticoagulants, insulin, opioids, and chemotherapy agents require special protocols including independent double-checks, standardized concentrations, and automated dispensing systems [48]. Medication reconciliation at care transitions prevents discrepancies by systematically reviewing and updating medication lists, though effectiveness depends on thorough implementation [49].

Infection Prevention and Control #

Healthcare-associated infections remain a persistent patient safety challenge requiring multilayered prevention strategies. Hand hygiene represents the single most important infection control measure, yet compliance rates often fall below optimal levels despite extensive promotion efforts [50]. Multimodal interventions combining education, reminders, monitoring, feedback, and administrative support achieve the most substantial and sustained improvements in hand hygiene adherence [51]. Central line bundles incorporating evidence-based practices such as maximal sterile barriers, chlorhexidine skin antisepsis, and daily necessity assessment have dramatically reduced catheter-associated bloodstream infections [52]. Ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention bundles including head-of-bed elevation, oral care with chlorhexidine, sedation interruption, and spontaneous breathing trials similarly decrease infection rates [53]. Surgical site infection prevention requires attention to preoperative factors (appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, hair removal techniques, glycemic control), intraoperative practices (sterile technique, normothermia maintenance), and postoperative wound care [54]. Antimicrobial stewardship programs promote appropriate antibiotic selection, dosing, and duration to reduce adverse effects, healthcare costs, and antimicrobial resistance [55].

Improving Care Transitions #

Care transitions between settings and providers create vulnerability to medical errors and adverse events due to information discontinuity and fragmented communication. Structured discharge planning beginning early in hospitalization ensures adequate preparation for post-hospital care, including medication management, follow-up appointments, and recognition of warning signs [56]. The teach-back method verifies patient understanding by asking patients to explain information in their own words, identifying knowledge gaps that require additional education [57]. Comprehensive discharge summaries transmitted promptly to outpatient providers should include diagnosis, hospital course, medications, pending tests, and follow-up needs, yet communication gaps frequently persist [58]. Transitional care interventions incorporating post-discharge phone calls, home visits by nurses, and early follow-up appointments reduce readmissions and adverse events [59]. Standardized handoff protocols using structured communication tools such as I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness and contingency planning, Synthesis by receiver) improve information transfer and reduce handoff-related errors [60].

Teamwork and Communication #

Effective teamwork and communication form the foundation of safe healthcare delivery, as most patient care involves collaboration among multiple professionals. Team training programs based on aviation crew resource management principles teach specific teamwork skills including leadership, situational awareness, mutual support, and closed-loop communication [61]. TeamSTEPPS (Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety) represents a widely adopted evidence-based framework for healthcare team training, demonstrating improvements in teamwork behaviors and clinical outcomes [62]. Structured communication tools such as SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) standardize information exchange, particularly during critical situations and handoffs [63]. Interprofessional rounds and huddles create opportunities for team members to share information, anticipate problems, and coordinate care plans [64]. Speaking-up behavior and assertiveness training empower all team members to voice concerns about patient safety regardless of hierarchy, overcoming traditional power gradients that silence frontline staff [65].

Learning from Errors: Root Cause Analysis #

Systematic investigation of adverse events enables healthcare organizations to identify underlying causes and implement preventive measures. Root cause analysis provides a structured methodology for examining safety events, moving beyond individual blame to uncover system vulnerabilities [66]. This process involves assembling a multidisciplinary team, reconstructing the event timeline, identifying contributing factors, determining root causes, and developing action plans [67]. The Five Whys technique repeatedly asks “why” to drill down from obvious causes to fundamental system failures that enabled the error [68]. Fishbone diagrams visually organize potential contributing factors across categories such as people, processes, equipment, environment, and management, facilitating comprehensive analysis [69]. Action plans emerging from root cause analysis should target specific system changes with measurable outcomes and assigned accountability, though follow-through and sustained implementation remain challenging [70]. Healthcare Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) applies similar systematic thinking proactively, examining high-risk processes before adverse events occur to identify and mitigate potential failure modes [71].

Measurement and Quality Improvement #

Continuous measurement and improvement drive progress in patient safety and high-value care. Structure, process, and outcome measures provide complementary perspectives on healthcare quality, with structure reflecting system capacity, processes indicating what is actually done, and outcomes representing the ultimate impact on patients [72]. Balancing measures ensure that improvement efforts do not inadvertently cause harm in other areas, while run charts and statistical process control charts distinguish common cause variation from special cause variation requiring investigation [73]. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles enable rapid iterative testing of changes, allowing teams to learn and refine interventions before widespread implementation [74]. Lean methodology and Six Sigma approaches borrowed from manufacturing eliminate waste and reduce variation, though successful healthcare application requires adaptation to the complexity and uncertainty of clinical practice [75]. Public reporting of quality and safety data creates accountability and enables patients to make informed choices, though concerns about data validity, risk adjustment, and unintended consequences require ongoing attention [76].

Cost-Conscious Care #

Delivering high-value care necessitates awareness of healthcare costs and their impact on patients and society. Clinicians frequently lack accurate knowledge of costs for tests, procedures, and treatments they order, limiting their ability to practice cost-conscious care [77]. Price transparency initiatives providing cost information at the point of care enable more informed decision-making, though effectiveness depends on presentation format and integration into clinical workflow [78]. Reducing low-value care—interventions that provide minimal benefit relative to costs and harms—represents a major opportunity to improve value, with the Choosing Wisely campaign identifying numerous commonly overused services [79]. Evidence-based approaches to diagnostic testing involve understanding test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values), pre-test probability, and how test results will change management [80]. Therapeutic alternatives should be evaluated considering comparative effectiveness, safety profiles, and costs, recognizing that the most expensive option is not necessarily the most effective [81]. Conversations about costs with patients acknowledge financial concerns, explore insurance coverage and out-of-pocket expenses, and consider cost-effective alternatives while maintaining quality [82].

Overuse, Underuse, and Misuse #

Healthcare quality problems manifest as overuse of interventions that provide little benefit, underuse of beneficial interventions, and misuse through medical errors or poor execution. Overuse includes excessive imaging for routine conditions, unnecessary antibiotics for viral infections, and aggressive interventions near the end of life that diminish quality without extending survival [83]. Contributing factors include defensive medicine, financial incentives, patient expectations, and inability to tolerate diagnostic uncertainty [84]. Underuse particularly affects preventive services, chronic disease management, and evidence-based treatments in underserved populations, reflecting access barriers, system failures, and implicit biases [85]. Misuse encompasses preventable complications, medication errors, and technical failures that harm patients despite appropriate indications for intervention [86]. Addressing these quality gaps requires multipronged approaches including education, decision support, performance feedback, and system redesign [87].

Diagnostic Stewardship #

Judicious use of diagnostic testing balances the benefits of information gained against the harms and costs of testing. Overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment result from detecting abnormalities that would never cause symptoms or harm, particularly prevalent in cancer screening and incidental findings [88]. Cascade effects occur when initial low-value tests lead to additional testing and interventions, each carrying risks and costs, potentially harming patients who were initially asymptomatic [89]. Pre-test probability assessment using clinical prediction rules and Bayesian reasoning helps determine when testing will meaningfully change management versus provide redundant information [90]. Test result interpretation requires understanding false-positive and false-negative rates, particularly when screening low-prevalence conditions where most positive results are false [91]. Incidental findings management protocols establish systematic approaches to unexpected test results, balancing thoroughness with avoiding unnecessary downstream testing [92].

Reducing Preventable Readmissions #

Hospital readmissions, particularly when preventable, represent failures in care quality and generate substantial costs. Risk stratification identifies patients at highest readmission risk based on factors including disease severity, functional status, social determinants, and prior utilization, enabling targeted interventions [93]. Discharge planning incorporating medication reconciliation, patient education, arranging follow-up appointments, and ensuring post-discharge support reduces readmission rates [94]. Transitional care models featuring post-discharge phone calls, home visits, and early outpatient appointments provide continuity and identify problems before they necessitate rehospitalization [95]. Primary care follow-up within seven days of discharge enables medication review, symptom assessment, and care plan adjustment, though achieving this benchmark requires coordinated scheduling and communication [96]. Social determinants of health including housing instability, food insecurity, and lack of transportation contribute to readmissions, necessitating healthcare systems to address these factors through community partnerships and navigation services [97].

Technology and Patient Safety #

Health information technology offers powerful capabilities for enhancing patient safety while simultaneously introducing new risks. Electronic health records enable legible documentation, comprehensive information access, and longitudinal tracking, yet usability problems, alert fatigue, and copy-paste errors create safety concerns [98]. Clinical decision support systems provide evidence-based recommendations at the point of care, improving adherence to guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease management, and medication safety [99]. However, poorly designed alerts interrupt workflow, produce excessive false positives, and suffer from high override rates that diminish effectiveness [100]. Telemedicine expands access to care and specialist consultation while raising questions about diagnostic accuracy, continuity, privacy, and the patient-provider relationship[101]. Patient portals enable secure messaging, test result access, and medication management, potentially improving engagement and safety through patient activation [102]. Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications promise enhanced clinical decision support, early warning systems for deterioration, and automated diagnosis, though require careful validation and monitoring to prevent algorithmic bias and unexpected failures [103].

Human Factors and Safety #

Human factors engineering applies knowledge about human capabilities and limitations to design safer healthcare systems. Cognitive load theory recognizes that working memory capacity is limited, and overwhelming information or task demands increase error likelihood [104]. System design should minimize unnecessary cognitive load through intuitive interfaces, standardized processes, and decision support [105]. Fatigue impairs clinical performance through slowed reaction time, decreased vigilance, and impaired judgment, with sleep deprivation producing cognitive effects comparable to alcohol intoxication [106]. Work hour restrictions for resident physicians aim to mitigate fatigue-related errors, though evidence for improved patient safety remains mixed and implementation creates challenges for continuity of care [107]. Interruptions and distractions fragment attention and increase error risk, particularly during high-risk activities such as medication administration [108]. Strategies to reduce interruptions include designated quiet zones, visual signals indicating concentration, and protected time for critical tasks [109]. Human-centered design principles involve end-users in technology and process development, ensuring that systems align with actual workflow and cognitive needs [110].

Regulatory and Accreditation Standards #

External oversight through regulation and accreditation establishes minimum safety standards and drives quality improvement. The Joint Commission’s National Patient Safety Goals identify high-priority safety concerns and evidence-based solutions that accredited organizations must implement [111]. These goals address issues including patient identification, communication, medication safety, infection control, and procedural verification [112]. Sentinel event policies require investigation and system improvements following serious safety events, with aggregated data informing broader safety recommendations [113]. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tie payment to quality performance through value-based purchasing programs and non-payment policies for hospital-acquired conditions and readmissions [114]. State licensing boards and health departments enforce regulations governing facility standards, infection control, and personnel qualifications [115]. Patient Safety Organizations provide confidentiality protections for quality improvement activities and adverse event reporting, encouraging transparency and learning [116].

Education and Training #

Effective patient safety and high-value care require deliberate education and skill development throughout professional training and practice. Health systems science curricula integrate quality improvement, patient safety, value-based care, and systems thinking into medical education alongside basic sciences and clinical skills [117]. Simulation-based training creates safe environments for practicing high-risk procedures, managing emergencies, and developing teamwork skills without endangering actual patients [118]. Debriefing after simulations and clinical events facilitates reflection, identifies learning points, and reinforces effective behaviors [119]. Quality improvement projects engage learners in identifying problems, implementing changes, and measuring outcomes, developing practical skills and systems thinking [120]. Interprofessional education brings together students from different health professions to learn about collaborative practice and role understanding [121]. Continuing professional development maintains competence throughout careers through self-directed learning, performance feedback, and deliberate practice [122].

The Future of High-Value Care and Patient Safety #

Emerging trends and innovations will shape the future landscape of high-value care and patient safety. Value-based payment models shift financial incentives from volume to value, rewarding providers for quality, outcomes, and efficiency rather than service quantity [123]. Population health management approaches coordinate care across settings and over time, addressing prevention, chronic disease management, and social determinants [124]. Precision medicine tailoring treatments to individual genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors promises improved outcomes and reduced adverse effects, though raises questions about cost-effectiveness and equitable access [125]. Patient-generated health data from wearable devices and home monitoring expand information available for clinical decision-making while creating challenges for data volume, validity, and integration [126]. Learning health systems systematically apply data analytics and rapid-cycle improvement to generate evidence and optimize care processes, blurring the distinction between research and quality improvement [127]. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of telemedicine, highlighted disparities in care access and outcomes, and demonstrated both healthcare system resilience and vulnerability [128]. Artificial intelligence applications for diagnosis, treatment selection, and resource allocation will likely expand, requiring careful attention to validation, bias, transparency, and human oversight [129].

Conclusion #

High-value care and patient safety represent intertwined imperatives for modern healthcare systems, requiring clinicians to balance quality, safety, and costs in pursuit of optimal patient outcomes. Achieving these goals demands systems thinking that recognizes the complexity of healthcare delivery and designs processes resistant to human error. Cultivating cultures of safety where transparency, learning, and continuous improvement thrive creates foundations for sustained progress. Education must prepare healthcare professionals with knowledge, skills, and attitudes for delivering value-based, patient-centered, safe care. As healthcare systems evolve toward value-based payment and population health, integration of high-value care principles and robust safety practices will determine success in meeting the triple aim of improved patient experience, better population health, and reduced per capita costs. The challenge ahead involves translating evidence-based practices into consistent, widespread implementation while addressing persistent challenges including diagnostic errors, care fragmentation, and health disparities. Ultimately, the commitment to high-value care and patient safety reflects medicine’s fundamental obligation to help patients and avoid harm, modernized for the complexities of twenty-first century healthcare.

References #

  1. Owens DK, Qaseem A, Chou R, Shekelle P. High-value, cost-conscious health care: concepts for clinicians to evaluate the benefits, harms, and costs of medical interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(3):174-180. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-154-3-201102010-00007
  2. Gonzalo JD, Lucey C, Wolpaw T, Chang A. Value-added clinical systems learning roles for medical students that transform education and health: a guide for building partnerships between medical schools and health systems. Acad Med. 2017;92(5):602-607. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001346
  3. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139
  4. Moriates C, Arora V, Shah N. Understanding Value-Based Healthcare. New York: McGraw Hill Professional; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001111
  5. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477-2481. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1011024
  6. Elshaug AG, McWilliams JM, Landon BE. The value of low-value lists. JAMA. 2013;309(8):775-776. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.828
  7. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
  8. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780-781. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1109283
  9. Cavallo JJ, Donoho DA, Forman HP. Hospital cost of surgery: implications for value-based payment. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(11):1434-1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.004
  10. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000. https://doi.org/10.17226/9728
  11. Leape LL, Berwick DM. Five years after To Err Is Human: what have we learned? JAMA. 2005;293(19):2384-2390. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.19.2384
  12. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):768-770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  13. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. https://doi.org/10.17226/10027
  14. Vincent C, Amalberti R. Safer Healthcare: Strategies for the Real World. Cham: Springer Open; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25559-0
  15. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events: implications for prevention. JAMA. 1995;274(1):29-34. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530010043033
  16. Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ, et al. Systems analysis of adverse drug events. JAMA. 1995;274(1):35-43. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530010049034
  17. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(13):1198-1208. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1306801
  18. Singh H, Meyer AN, Thomas EJ. The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(9):727-731. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627
  19. Kwaan MR, Studdert DM, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA. Incidence, patterns, and prevention of wrong-site surgery. Arch Surg. 2006;141(4):353-358. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.141.4.353
  20. Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, Williams MV, Basaviah P, Baker DW. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA. 2007;297(8):831-841. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.8.831
  21. Sexton JB, Helmreich RL, Neilands TB, et al. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-44
  22. Singer SJ, Gaba DM, Geppert JJ, Sinaiko AD, Howard SK, Park KC. The culture of safety: results of an organization-wide survey in 15 California hospitals. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(2):112-118. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.2.112
  23. Frankel AS, Leonard MW, Denham CR. Fair and just culture, team behavior, and leadership engagement: the tools to achieve high reliability. Health Serv Res. 2006;41(4 Pt 2):1690-1709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00572.x
  24. Chassin MR, Loeb JM. High-reliability health care: getting there from here. Milbank Q. 2013;91(3):459-490. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12023
  25. Edmondson AC. Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. J Manag Stud. 2003;40(6):1419-1452. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00386
  26. Pronovost PJ, Weast B, Holzmueller CG, et al. Evaluation of the culture of safety: survey of clinicians and managers in an academic medical center. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(6):405-410. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.6.405
  27. Rotter T, Kinsman L, James E, et al. Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD006632. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006632.pub2
  28. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):491-499. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0810119
  29. Vicente KJ. From patients to politicians: a cognitive engineering view of patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(4):302-304. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.4.302
  30. Armitage G. Double checking medicines: defence against error or contributory factor? J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(4):513-519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00907.x
  31. Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280(15):1311-1316. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.15.1311
  32. Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1197-1203. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.10.1197
  33. Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, Ebers AG, Fraser VJ, Levinson W. Patients’ and physicians’ attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors. JAMA. 2003;289(8):1001-1007. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.8.1001
  34. Mazor KM, Simon SR, Gurwitz JH. Communicating with patients about medical errors: a review of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(15):1690-1697. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.164.15.1690
  35. Shannon SE, Foglia MB, Hardy M, Gallagher TH. Disclosing errors to patients: perspectives of registered nurses. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35(1):5-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(09)35002-3
  36. Battles JB, Stevens DP. Adverse event reporting systems and safer healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2008.030775
  37. Kachalia A, Kaufman SR, Boothman R, et al. Liability claims and costs before and after implementation of a medical error disclosure program. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(4):213-221. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-4-201008170-00002
  38. Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(13):1493-1499. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493
  39. Mamede S, Schmidt HG, Penaforte JC. Effects of reflective practice on the accuracy of medical diagnoses. Med Educ. 2008;42(5):468-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03030.x
  40. Ely JW, Graber ML, Croskerry P. Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Acad Med. 2011;86(3):307-313. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820824cd
  41. Street RL Jr, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):295-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015
  42. Callen JL, Westbrook JI, Georgiou A, Li J. Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1334-1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1949-5
  43. Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, et al. Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(20):1881-1887. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.333
  44. Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(4):313-321. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1999.00660313
  45. van der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A, Berg M. Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(2):138-147. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1809
  46. Kaboli PJ, Hoth AB, McClimon BJ, Schnipper JL. Clinical pharmacists and inpatient medical care: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(9):955-964. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.9.955
  47. Poon EG, Keohane CA, Yoon CS, et al. Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1698-1707. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0907115
  48. Reducing and mitigating hazards associated with pharmacy compounding sterile preparations. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41(2):51-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41008-2
  49. Mueller SK, Sponsler KC, Kripalani S, Schnipper JL. Hospital-based medication reconciliation practices: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(14):1057-1069. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2246
  50. Erasmus V, Daha TJ, Brug H, et al. Systematic review of studies on compliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(3):283-294. https://doi.org/10.1086/650451
  51. Huis A, van Achterberg T, de Bruin M, Grol R, Schoonhoven L, Hulscher M. A systematic review of hand hygiene improvement strategies: a behavioural approach. Implement Sci. 2012;7:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-92
  52. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(26):2725-2732. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa061115
  53. Marra AR, Cal RG, Silva CV, et al. Successful prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in an intensive care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(8):619-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2009.03.009
  54. Anderson DJ, Podgorny K, Berríos-Torres SI, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(6):605-627. https://doi.org/10.1086/676022
  55. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE Jr, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(2):159-177. https://doi.org/10.1086/510393
  56. Jack BW, Chetty VK, Anthony D, et al. A reengineered hospital discharge program to decrease rehospitalization: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(3):178-187. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-3-200902030-00007
  57. Schillinger D, Piette J, Grumbach K, et al. Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(1):83-90. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.1.83
  58. Kripalani S, Jackson AT, Schnipper JL, Coleman EA. Promoting effective transitions of care at hospital discharge: a review of key issues for hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2007;2(5):314-323. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.228
  59. Naylor MD, Brooten DA, Campbell RL, Maislin G, McCauley KM, Schwartz JS. Transitional care of older adults hospitalized with heart failure: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(5):675-684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52202.x
  60. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1803-1812. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1405556
  61. Salas E, DiazGranados D, Klein C, et al. Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors. 2008;50(6):903-933. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X375009
  62. Weaver SJ, Dy SM, Rosen MA. Team-training in healthcare: a narrative synthesis of the literature. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(5):359-372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001848
  63. Müller M, Jürgens J, Redaèlli M, Klingberg K, Hautz WE, Stock S. Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022202. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022202
  64. O’Leary KJ, Buck R, Fligiel HM, et al. Structured interdisciplinary rounds in a medical teaching unit: improving patient safety. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):678-684. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.128
  65. Okuyama A, Wagner C, Bijnen B. Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based health care professionals: a literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-61
  66. Wu AW, Lipshutz AKM, Pronovost PJ. Effectiveness and efficiency of root cause analysis in medicine. JAMA. 2008;299(6):685-687. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.6.685
  67. Percarpio KB, Watts BV, Weeks WB. The effectiveness of root cause analysis: what does the literature tell us? Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(7):391-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(08)34049-5
  68. Card AJ, Ward JR, Clarkson PJ. Beyond FMEA: the structured what-if technique (SWIFT). J Healthc Risk Manag. 2012;31(4):23-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhrm.20101
  69. Okes D. Root Cause Analysis: The Core of Problem Solving and Corrective Action. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1008
  70. Nicolini D, Waring J, Mengis J. Policy and practice in the use of root cause analysis to investigate clinical adverse events: mind the gap. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(2):217-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.010
  71. DeRosier J, Stalhandske E, Bagian JP, Nudell T. Using health care Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: the VA National Center for Patient Safety’s prospective risk analysis system. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28(5):248-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1070-3241(02)28025-6
  72. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743-1748. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033
  73. Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(6):458-464. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.6.458
  74. Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, Darzi A, Bell D, Reed JE. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(4):290-298. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862
  75. DelliFraine JL, Langabeer JR 2nd, Nembhard IM. Assessing the evidence of Six Sigma and Lean in the health care industry. Qual Manag Health Care. 2010;19(3):211-225. https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0b013e3181eb140e
  76. Fung CH, Lim YW, Mattke S, Damberg C, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(2):111-123. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-2-200801150-00006
  77. Allan GM, Lexchin J. Physician awareness of diagnostic and nondrug therapeutic costs: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(2):158-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462308080215
  78. Silvestri MT, Bongiovanni TR, Glover JG, Gross CP. Impact of price display on provider ordering: a systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(1):65-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2500
  79. Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1801-1802. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.476
  80. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(17):926-930. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197810262991705
  81. Garber AM, Sox HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1805-1811. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0647
  82. Ubel PA, Abernethy AP, Zafar SY. Full disclosure—out-of-pocket costs as side effects. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(16):1484-1486. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1306826
  83. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513-1516. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.362
  84. Bishop TF, Federman AD, Keyhani S. Physicians’ views on defensive medicine: a national survey. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1081-1083. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.155
  85. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635-2645. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa022615
  86. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(6):377-384. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199102073240605
  87. Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. JAMA. 1998;280(11):1000-1005. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.1000
  88. Welch HG, Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. Boston: Beacon Press; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.929
  89. Mold JW, Stein HF. The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(8):512-514. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198602203140809
  90. McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, Naylor CD, Stiell IG, Richardson WS. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA. 2000;284(1):79-84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.1.79
  91. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
  92. Orme NM, Fletcher JG, Siddiki HA, et al. Incidental findings in imaging research: evaluating incidence, benefit, and burden. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(17):1525-1532. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.317
  93. Kansagara D, Englander H, Salanitro A, et al. Risk prediction models for hospital readmission: a systematic review. JAMA. 2011;306(15):1688-1698. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1515
  94. Hansen LO, Young RS, Hinami K, Leung A, Williams MV. Interventions to reduce 30-day rehospitalization: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):520-528. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00008
  95. Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, Min SJ. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(17):1822-1828. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.17.1822
  96. Sharma G, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, Zhang DD, Goodwin JS. Outpatient follow-up visit and 30-day emergency department visit and readmission in patients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(18):1664-1670. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.345
  97. Berkowitz SA, Hulberg AC, Hong C, et al. Addressing basic resource needs to improve primary care quality: a community collaboration programme. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(3):164-172. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004521
  98. Koppel R, Lehmann CU. Implications of an emerging EHR monoculture for hospitals and healthcare systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(2):465-471. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003023
  99. Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):29-43. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450
  100. Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0430-8
  101. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Shaw S, Morrison C. Video consultations for covid-19. BMJ. 2020;368:m998. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m998
  102. Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3171
  103. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
  104. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instr. 1994;4(4):295-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
  105. Huckman RS, Kelley MA. Public reporting, consumerism, and patient empowerment. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(20):1875-1877. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1310419
  106. Landrigan CP, Rothschild JM, Cronin JW, et al. Effect of reducing interns’ work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(18):1838-1848. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041406
  107. Bilimoria KY, Chung JW, Hedges LV, et al. National cluster-randomized trial of duty-hour flexibility in surgical training. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(8):713-727. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1515724
  108. Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, Dunsmuir WT, Day RO. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):683-690. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.65
  109. Raban MZ, Westbrook JI. Are interventions to reduce interruptions and errors during medication administration effective?: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(5):414-421. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002118
  110. Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, et al. Human factors systems approach to healthcare quality and patient safety. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(1):14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.023
  111. The Joint Commission. National Patient Safety Goals Effective January 2021 for the Hospital Program. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(11)37036-6
  112. Chassin MR, Loeb JM, Schmaltz SP, Wachter RM. Accountability measures—using measurement to promote quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(7):683-688. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb1002320
  113. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Sentinel event policy and procedures. Jt Comm Perspect. 1998;18(2):6-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(98)18003-5
  114. Jha AK, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. The long-term effect of premier pay for performance on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1606-1615. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1112351
  115. Boodman SG. How states can strengthen the safety net and save lives by regulating hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(1):258-266. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.23.1.258
  116. Kachalia A, Shojania KG, Hofer TP, Piotrowski M, Saint S. Does full disclosure of medical errors affect malpractice liability? The jury is still out. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2003;29(10):503-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1549-3741(03)29060-7
  117. Gonzalo JD, Caverzagie KJ, Hawkins RE, Lawson L, Wolpaw DR, Chang A. Concerns and responses for integrating health systems science into medical education. Acad Med. 2018;93(6):843-849. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001960
  118. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011;86(6):706-711. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119
  119. Raemer D, Anderson M, Cheng A, Fanning R, Nadkarni V, Savoldelli G. Research regarding debriefing as part of the learning process. Simul Healthc. 2011;6(Suppl):S52-S57. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e31822724d0
  120. Ogrinc G, Headrick LA, Mutha S, Coleman MT, O’Donnell J, Miles PV. A framework for teaching medical students and residents about practice-based learning and improvement, synthesized from a literature review. Acad Med. 2003;78(7):748-756. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200307000-00019
  121. Reeves S, Perrier L, Goldman J, Freeth D, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(3):CD002213. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002213.pub3
  122. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB. Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA. 1995;274(9):700-705. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530090032018
  123. Porter ME, Kaplan RS. How to pay for health care. Harv Bus Rev. 2016;94(7-8):88-98, 100, 134. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0174
  124. Kindig D, Stoddart G. What is population health? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(3):380-383. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.3.380
  125. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793-795. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1500523
  126. Topol EJ. The Patient Will See You Now: The Future of Medicine is in Your Hands. New York: Basic Books; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3969
  127. Friedman CP, Rubin JC, Sullivan KJ. Toward an information infrastructure for global health improvement. Yearb Med Inform. 2017;26(1):16-23. https://doi.org/10.15265/IY-2017-004
  128. Mehrotra A, Ray K, Brockmeyer DM, Barnett ML, Bender JA. Rapidly converting to “virtual practices”: outpatient care in the era of Covid-19. NEJM Catalyst. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.20.0091
  129. Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1347-1358. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1814259
Updated on December 10, 2025