{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017843866171003718, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.37914691943128, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Do the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) dimensions of quality capture the current meaning of quality in health care? – An integrative review

Aims: The aim of this study was to determine whether the widely adopted Institute of Medicine’s dimensions of quality capture the current meaning of quality in health care literature. Design: An integrative review was utilised as there has been a multitude of published papers defining quality in relation to health care, therefore collective analysis may provide new insight and understanding. Method: Papers offering a definition or conceptual understanding of quality in relation to health care were identified by searching relevant databases. Papers were excluded according to predefined criteria. An integrative review was conducted and the Institute of Medicine’s dimensions were used as a framework for data extraction and analysis. Findings: The review identified two important additional dimensions of quality; namely caring and navigating the health care system and argues that they require recognition as dimensions in their own right. Conclusion: In the current climate of constrained finances there is a risk that the allocation of resources is directed to current explicit dimensions to the detriment of others. The result may be a reduction in health care quality, rather than improvement.