IOM and HMD
The Health and Medicine Division (HMD) is a division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies). The National Academies are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. The Academies operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln. HMD previously was the Institute of Medicine (IOM) program unit of the National Academies. On March 15, 2016, the division was renamed HMD, building on the heritage of the IOM’s work in medicine while emphasizing its increased focus on a wider range of health matters.
IOM Future of Nursing Report
In 2008, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and the IOM launched a two-year initiative to assess and transform the nursing profession. In 2010, the IOM released The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health with the purpose of producing a report that would make recommendations for an action-oriented blueprint for the future of nursing. ANA was gratified to find that many of the elements and recommendations of the IOM Report on the Future of Nursing were reflected in the ongoing work to advance the nursing profession. ANA and the ANA constituent state nurses' associations have engaged in a wide range of activities over time that support the evidence-based recommendations of the IOM. (see document below)
A handful of analytic frameworks for quality assessment have guided measure development initiatives in the public and private sectors. One of the most influential is the framework put forth by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which includes the following six aims for the health care
system.[1]
- Safe: Avoiding harm to patients from the care that is intended to help them.
- Effective: Providing services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and misuse, respectively).
- Patient-centered: Providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions.
- Timely: Reducing waits and sometimes harmful delays for both those who receive and those who give care.
- Efficient: Avoiding waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas, and energy.
- Equitable: Providing care that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.
Existing measures address some domains more extensively than others. The vast majority of measures address effectiveness and safety, a smaller number examine timeliness and patient-centeredness, and very few assess the efficiency or equity of care.[2]
Frameworks like the IOM domains also make it easier for consumers to grasp the meaning and relevance of quality measures. Studies have shown that providing consumers with a framework for understanding quality helps them value a broader range of quality indicators. For example, when consumers are given a brief, understandable explanation of safe, effective, and patient-centered care, they view all three categories as important. Further, when measures are grouped into user-friendly versions of those three IOM domains, consumers can see the meaning of the measures more clearly and understand how they relate to their own concerns about their care.[3]
To learn more about grouping measures into categories, go to Organizing Measures To Reduce Information Overload.
To learn more about selecting and reporting measures within categories that consumers understand, refer to:
- Hibbard J. Engaging Consumers in Quality Issues: While the road to engaging consumers is steep, it is fairly well marked. Washington, DC: National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation; October 2005. Available at //www.nihcm.org/pdf/ExpertV9.pdf.
- Hibbard JH, Pawlson LG. Why Not Give Consumers a Framework for Understanding Quality? Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 2004 June. 30(6); 347-351.
- Pillittere D, Bigley MB, Hibbard J, et al. Exploring Consumer Perspectives on Good Physician Care: A Summary of Focus Group Results. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; January 2003. Available at //www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2003_jan_exploring_consumer_perspectives_on_good_physician_care__a_summary_of_focus_group_results_pillittere_consumerperspectives_578_pdf.pdf
[1] Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for
the 21st Century. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2001.
[2] Institute of Medicine (IOM). Performance Measurement: Accelerating Improvement. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2005.
[3] Hibbard JH, Pawlson
LG. Why Not Give Consumers a Framework for Understanding Quality? Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 2004 June. 30(6); 347-351.
Also in "Select Measures to Report"
- The Six Domains of Health Care Quality
- Types of Measures You Can Report
- Understanding Data Sources
- Selecting the Right Measures for Your Report
- Measures of Quality for Different Health Care Settings
- Quality Measurement Resources
Page last reviewed November 2018
Page originally created February 2015
Internet Citation: Six Domains of Health Care Quality. Content last reviewed November 2018. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
//www.ahrq.gov/talkingquality/measures/six-domains.html