Competing Needs and Quadruple Aim in Healthcare

Competing Needs

For policymakers in various industries, competing needs are an area of growing concern. In fact, because there are so many stakeholders and other parties involved, this issue is especially relevant in the healthcare context. Patients, medical managers, clinical teams, and authorities are all actively working to improve the standard of care while also making the system more effective. In these conditions, it is crucial to strike a balance between the needs of all parties in order to ensure the long-term development of healthcare, which is a crucial component of all developed communities. From one angle, the system is anticipated to continue functioning effectively in that all resources and assets are to be utilized cost-effectively. Clearly, both public and private organizations devote significant budgets to the creation and delivery of medical services, but this sum is by no means limitless. The system cannot afford to compromise on the quality of care, which is of utmost importance in terms of patient outcomes and experiences. Medical teams remain at the intersection of these two aspects of the healthcare industry, which frequently collide and create two competing needs.

On the one hand, the financial sector starts to matter more and more in the context of healthcare. In this situation, questions about how to lower treatment costs and their cost-effectiveness remain a hot topic. Healthcare is an expensive industry for all parties involved, and these issues have gained importance over the past few years. In contrast to the original treat-heal-care architecture, modern institutions deliberately pursue a business-like style of providing medical services, according to Kelly and Porr (2018) Each party has a vested interest in maximizing the financial element of care, including insurance companies, clinics, managers, and patients. Such a strategy is in a sense supported by key economic ideas. Healthcare cannot entirely be separated from the paradigm of economic interactions, notwithstanding how important it is to society. Therefore, inferior levels of service coverage result from inefficient budget distribution, which aids in the development and maintenance of healthcare inequities.

On the other hand, the requirement for profit increases and budget optimization frequently clashes with other care-related concerns. Modern institutions look for novel ways to save costs in their pursuit of financial efficiency. This tendency consequently frequently leads to decreased staffing at various medical facilities. A reduction in the number of doctors, nurses, and other clinical professionals is made in an effort to ease the financial burden of paying salaries on an organization. While this strategy may help an institution's finances in the near term, the remaining members of the medical team are subject to an excessive amount of workload (Winter et al., 2020). In other words, although the number of patients either rises or at the very least stays the same, modern organizations have fewer specialists at their disposal. In this circumstance, stress at work is more intense for medical professionals such as doctors and nurses. As a result, they experience exhaustion, time constraints, and professional burnout, which makes it difficult for them to provide quality care. As a result, the quality of services declines, making it harder to provide patients with the distinctive experiences and results they deserve.

Quadruple Aim

The junction of the contrasting demands mentioned above continues to be where nurses, doctors, and other medical specialists work. The ongoing pressure to reduce costs and the rising demand for high-quality, patient-centered treatment frequently result in an undesirable work environment. Such a propensity is closely related to the subject at hand and directly contributes to employee disengagement and burnout. A key goal of healthcare administrators in this regard is to create and put into practice efficient policies that will balance the needs of all stakeholders. Fitzpatrick et al. (2019) claim that the Triple Aim paradigm has been a well-known strategy for structuring the provision of medical treatment. Both the patient and the institution viewpoints are included in the policy's original construction. The approach for the former emphasizes how important it is to promote public health while also enhancing patient experiences at medical facilities. Triple Aim emphasizes the significance of minimizing healthcare expenses on behalf of the organizations. As a result, the character of the policy under discussion directly reflects the healthcare needs that have been mentioned as being in conflict.

However, the original design has evolved naturally to include the fourth dimension. The unique feature of Quadruple Aim acknowledges the demands of the medical team and draws attention from the general public to issues of employee engagement and wellbeing. The main enabler of medical care that is both cost-effective and beneficial for the patient, according to the policy, is the presence of satisfied and motivated experts. In other words, Quadruple Aim respects the demands of medical professionals and is supported by various American organizations. Overall, this strategy places staff requirements on an equal footing with patient and organizational needs. As a result, harmony develops, encouraging the thorough growth of the nation's healthcare system.

The ethical component is still essential in today's world in all areas of human endeavor. However, these issues take on a special significance in the healthcare sector. Regarding the Quadruple Aim policy, its tenets appear to coincide with those put forth by the American Nurses Association (2015). The therapeutic work atmosphere is expected to be cozy and secure for the personnel, under the ANA's Code of Ethics. Additionally, it is the ethical responsibility of the management of the healthcare organization to develop favorable conditions for all professionals involved in the provision of medical services. The ANA contends that in order to improve outcomes for all parties, management should attend to the requirements of every employee. As a result, the main advantage of the stated policy is related to its all-encompassing viewpoint on the delivery of medical services. All system components are treated equally by Quadruple Aim, which is consistent with medical ethics.

However, as is frequently the case, the questioned policy still shows some space for development. More specifically, its flaws are associated with the general debate over the fourth goal of the Quadruple Aim. The policy's rhetoric is still very favorable because it encourages institutions to give attention to working conditions. However, it doesn't seem that this paradigm offers any clear instructions for the anticipated advancements. As a result, there is some degree of uncertainty, which leaves the application of the policy open to individual interpretation. An incorporated dialogue that is concrete will help this model. It seems feasible to put together an interprofessional task force for this goal that is capable of performing a thorough investigation of the clinical work environment. Following these evaluations, the expert group can design and implement precise criteria for the ideal workload, resource allocation, patient communication, and overall working environment. These suggestions will ultimately direct hospital administrators and staff members toward a better future of easily accessible high-quality care.