The expressions ‘high quality care’ and ‘low quality care’ are cognitive and linguistic artefacts that help to structure people’s lives and thinking; for example, moves are now afoot internationally to pay bonuses to health professionals for delivering high quality care. United States programmes, most conspicuously, are assuming that high quality care can be validly distinguished from low quality care, and incentivised through bonuses. This distinction is always at least implicit, for high quality care has no meaning without low quality care. (...) Through a ‘deconstructionist reading,’ this article discusses limitations of categorising the quality of care as either high or low. The limitations of this ‘binary opposition’ can include a lack of defining attributes; vagueness and fuzziness at the ‘boundaries’ between high quality care and low quality care; concealment of quality as a continuum; and use of the binary opposition to effect social order and control. Health policy implications of our analysis are discussed. Drawing upon the general medical services contract in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach to overcoming the oversimplification and imprecision that categorisation tends to produce. (shrink)

During the past three decades, there has been an ongoing debate on the quality of health care. Defining quality is an important part of it. This paper offers a review of definitions and a conceptual analysis in order to understand and explain the differences between them. The analysis results in a semantic rule, expressing the meaning of quality as an optimal balance between possibilities realised and a framework of norms and values. This rule is postulated as a formal criterion of (...) meaning, e.g. when (correctly) applied people understand each other. The rule suits the abstract nature of the term quality. Quality doesn't exist as such. It is constructed in an interaction between people. This interaction is guided by rules in order to transfer information, e.g. communicate on quality. The rule improves our ability to discuss the debate on quality and to develop a theory grounding actions such as quality assurance or quality improvement. (shrink)