Fair and impartial assessment of hospital quality.

The Departments of Health in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi have just announced the quality assessment scores of hospitals in their respective areas. Among these, many private hospitals have risen to the top positions; many hospitals that had previously received criticism regarding service quality have also achieved good rankings. However, the question arises: do the current assessments accurately reflect reality, and how can we ensure that the results are not merely impressive numbers on paper?

In the context of healthcare systems facing numerous pressures from hospital overcrowding, staff shortages, medical errors, etc., the inspection and evaluation of hospital quality is no longer just an administrative procedure, but a "safety filter" for public health. This practice has been adopted and implemented in many countries around the world.

The results of the evaluations provided a comprehensive review of the hospital's operations: from the emergency room and patient rooms to infection control procedures and the service attitude of medical staff. Through this, strengths were affirmed, weaknesses were identified, and the hospital was compelled to change in a safer and more efficient direction.

Previously, patients often chose hospitals based on habit or word-of-mouth recommendations. Now, they have an additional objective basis: quality ratings. People have the right to know which hospitals are highly rated for surgical safety, infection control, patient care, and support services. This transparency protects the legitimate rights of patients while placing them at the center of the healthcare system.

Publicly disclosing hospital evaluation results also creates a healthy competitive environment. Hospitals with high scores will gain recognition, build a reputable brand, and attract patients. Conversely, hospitals with low scores will find it difficult to "hide their weaknesses," forcing them to improve if they don't want to fall behind.

This very pressure will create lasting change, sparking a race to "clean up," renew, and even "polish" hospitals in the most perfect way possible to obtain a quality standard certification.

However, many experts argue that the evaluation results sometimes do not accurately reflect the reality due to the limited role of independent oversight; some criteria focus more on paperwork and procedures than on treatment outcomes and patient experiences.

Furthermore, there is a disparity between different levels of healthcare, with higher-level hospitals having stronger resources and a higher chance of achieving high scores, while lower-level hospitals often face difficulties in terms of personnel, finances, and infrastructure, leading to a risk of being at a disadvantage when compared to others. Many hospitals receive impressive scores, yet patients have to wait for hours for a single examination, hospital corridors remain crowded, and the sighs of patients still echo.

Meanwhile, lower-level hospitals, despite their efforts to improve, receive low scores simply due to a lack of equipment or outdated facilities. Such a rating system inadvertently rewards those that are already strong and penalizes those that are weak, further exacerbating inequality in access to healthcare.

Furthermore, current hospital quality assessment criteria still heavily rely on paperwork and procedures, and people don't go to hospitals to see how neatly the filing cabinets are organized; they need quality treatment, safety, and respect. Yet, these core elements are not prioritized in the criteria.

Ideally, patient satisfaction surveys should be the "heart" of the evaluation process, but in reality, these surveys largely consist of a few formal questionnaires, and some hospitals even distribute questionnaires for staff to collect. How can patients dare to speak frankly and give honest feedback under such circumstances?

If the healthcare sector truly wants to improve hospital quality, the first thing it must do is prioritize the patient experience – the primary users of hospital services. Listening to patients' concerns will help identify the root causes, find solutions, make improvements, and ultimately serve patients better.

Most importantly, hospital quality assessment should not be carried out only according to planned schedules or deployments, but should be done daily, and the evaluation criteria must change: using treatment outcomes, patient safety, mortality rates, complications, and genuine patient satisfaction as the benchmark – because these numbers don't lie.

Evaluating hospital quality is a sound policy, but if it turns into a "performance-based competition," it will not only fail to encourage improvement but also create dangerous misconceptions: people will lose trust, and hospitals will lose the motivation to change.

Only when evaluation reports truly reflect the hospital beds, emergency rooms, and the voices of patients will hospital quality be meaningful. Conversely, if the numbers remain merely for show, the ultimate losers will be the patients – those who place their vital trust in the healthcare system.

THANH AN

Source: https://www.sggp.org.vn/cong-tam-danh-gia-chat-luong-benh-vien-post809203.html