But the fact that I bought the jacket demonstrates that I found it good at the time. I could also think that something is good and later change my mind, of course. As far as I’m concerned, that exchange would have been bad, since I choose instead to spend my money on the Liberace-style sequin jacket. I may sincerely agree with the salesman that the ostrich hide boots are of the very best quality, but I still ultimately think that parting with five hundred dollars to get them would be a bad quality trade. Of course, one has to be careful here and not confuse a stated value for a demonstrated value. The value determination seals the choice (or perhaps vice versa). Note that the stipulation is coincident with the choice: It’s not that I first determine whether something is good or not, and then make my decision. I refused that one because it was a thing or an option of bad quality. Goodness and badness are important qualities that, in the context of any decision making, help express or articulate the ultimate reason for the choice taken: I chose this thing because it was of good quality, or I chose this option because it was a good thing to do. The same goes for the distinction between something good and something bad. A slightly muffled sound or a super muffled one all belong to the same category of muffled sounds. Now, it is true that a sound can be more or less muffled, but once we focus on how muffled the sound is, we are no longer interested in muffledness as a quality. Qualities separate and segregate things into respective categories. A person is pleasant, as opposed to rough or taciturn. In its classical sense, a quality of a thing is a characteristic that distinguishes it from another thing: a sound is crystalline, as opposed to muffled or thundering. I like to stick to the old school realism of Aristotle, and I think ancient thinking may come handy here. But can we put our finger on the concept without being driven to insanity? So what is Quality? To answer the question, Robert Pirsig felt compelled to combine Zen buddhism, pragmatism, and Peyote. “Quantifying quality” does sound a tad incoherent, doesn’t it? Vinod Seth humbly remarked, if you measure something, is it still a quality? How else could they be expected to tame the beast?īut, as Dr. Taking the pulse of “industry leaders,” Becker’s Hospital Review affirmed they were confident the agreement would help “accelerate the country’s movement to better quality.” And who could possibly be against better quality? Only anti-progress reactionaries, to be sure!īut to understand this latest development, the context may be helpful.įifteen years ago, the Institute of Medicine, suddenly aware of the calamitous state of American healthcare, issued a call to arms urging everyone to “ Cross the Quality Chasm.” And since, in those days, management gurus were repeatedly telling us that “if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it,” the missionaries of quality dispatched in the wake of the IOM report naturally went on a quality measurement frenzy. Indeed, we all deserve uniform quality measures. Nevertheless, doctors were expected to greet the news with cheers. As Rich Duszak reported, Adam Slavitt, acting administrator for CMS, also declared that “patients and care providers deserve a uniform approach to measure quality.” Physicians were not actually party to the deal. Slavitt’s tweet would lead us to believe, the agreement to the new rules was primarily between commercial insurers and CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Strictly speaking, and contrary to what Mr. "Huge step forward" #aafpĪ few weeks ago, the medical community received unexpected good news from the government about a “simplification of quality measures:” Impactful news today: Physicians, CMS and major commercial plans, announce simplification of quality measures.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |