Application of Donabedian Three‐Dimensional Model in Outpatient Care Quality: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The mobility of outpatients, frequent treatment sessions, and varying illness severity challenge nursing care and hinder quality improvement efforts. The Donabedian model effectively evaluates nursing quality and is widely used in operating rooms, intensive care units and oncology wards. However, its application in outpatient nursing remains unclear. Aim: To overview the Donabedian model’s application in outpatient care quality. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley framework, adhering to PRISMA‐ScR. Searches for eligible papers were performed on PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, CBM, and Wan Fang in June 2024. Data were analyzed narratively using an inductive approach, with visual mapping done through ArcGIS and Origin. Results: A total of 18 studies were included in the review. Literature review, Delphi and semistructured interview were widely used in the mixed method studies. The primary settings involved dental clinics and health examination centers, followed by traditional Chinese medicine clinics and pediatric clinics. The studies spanned various regions: 2 in Canada, 3 in Germany, and 13 in China. Structural indicators evaluate outpatient care systems and resources, while process indicators emphasize specialty nursing practice, safety, infection control, and humanistic care. Satisfaction, adverse events, and quality care serve as key secondary indicators for outcome assessment. Conclusions: The research on outpatient care quality based on the Donabedian model is primarily mixed, with a need to expand interventional and qualitative studies. The structure‐process‐outcome quality indicators have varying focuses that require further verification and coordination. Structural indicators offer more policy and resource support, while process indicators differ across outpatient specialties, leading to heterogeneous specialist nursing practice metrics. Satisfaction and adverse events are crucial components in evaluating outpatient nursing quality outcomes. Implications for Nursing Management: The application of the Donabedian model offers care managers practical ideas and references for outpatient care quality improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".