All papers are checked via
|← Polarity Management||A Work Breakdown Structure →|
The article is about disease management as an important component of care management. Patients are viewed as individuals experiencing clinical courses of a given disease as opposed to viewing them as stand-alone mechanisms for cost effectiveness improvement. The disease management has three parts, i.e., a knowledge base that deals with economic structure of a disease, systems for care delivery, and continuous improvement process.
Disease management approach is suitable for various diseases that include those that are easy to develop evidence-based protocols and those that have measurable outcomes. Examples of diseases favored by the approach include diabetes, heart diseases, cancer, asthma, stroke, mental health, dermatological diseases, prostate diseases, and depression. However, some are less managed and they include AIDS, hypertension, substance misuse, Cystic fibrosis, etc. The concept of disease management ranges from health promotion as well as the disease prevention through treatment, diagnosis, and rehabilitation to long-term care.
Disease management depends on factors like manager commitment, organizational readiness to pursue the course, the change of management structure, performance management process, and availability of patients. Communication between the stakeholders of the process is vital for the disease management success. However, before implementing the process, the analysis and the assessment of objectives should be done in order to identify the problem and all the possible ways to tackle them. Moreover, the process requires diverse tools and skills to assure its success. One of them is the knowledge base, which emphasizes the need for specialization; the outcome research is another one and it involves the measurement of quality and satisfaction. Others tools and skills include: information systems, behavior influence tools, continuous quality improvement, as well as the ability to manage financial risks.
The article continues to describe some pros and cons related to the disease management program. It has it that an effective system of health care requires long-term cooperation between primary and secondary care. This will in turn require an improved information system, information sharing, as well as collaborative working. The government’s approach was negative as it failed to offer guidance with relation to the disease management. It remained neutral in all the moves and strategies implemented through the management process as it does not encourage or discourage any of them. In conclusion, the article argues that care delivery can be improved by acknowledging the present limitations and providing support to clinicians. This would ensure improved outcome and successful implementation of the disease management process.
The article fails to present a specific abstract that represents the ideas in the whole text. It does not assist the reader to come up with an overview of what the article is all about or the main issue addressed. Similarly, the introduction does not clarify the purpose of the article as it only defines the disease management and leads to the examples of the disease management process on diabetes mellitus. However, when one reads through the article, it is much more as a description of the disease management, its suitability, how to set it up, tools and skills needed, its pros and cons, as well as the government’s approach to the process.
There is a need of clarity in the pros and cons sections of the article. The description provided by the article is not clear and leaves the reader with questions of who among the patients, clinicians, and health systems have their benefits as well as disadvantages described. This should be presented in a logical manner and expanded appropriately. Finally, the article should have presented all its examples and case studies in the boxes to avoid confusing the reader while going through the text.