Holistic Systems and Healthcare
Table 1 points to some of the differences between holistic methods and nonholistic approaches. The table does of course greatly simplify a rather multidimensional space, although it nevertheless leads to some provocative comparisons.
It is also an opportunity to understand whether applications and networks with consistent behaviour are too hard to implement — and in particular systems that need to meet strict confidentiality criteria. In some other domains, these problems are contrasted with very similar conditions. We are particularly interested in finding some valuable insights into the consideration of comparable oil, agriculture and healthcare issues. Holistic approaches are contrasted with non-holistic approaches in each of the fields. Holistic methods take systems as a whole rather than relying only on individual properties or elements.
We are now extremely out of date to see that we can function separately in what sometimes is disappointingly considered a silo, while successfully leading to a performance like good health care. Today, holistic approaches have evolved from the absence of drug applications to incorporate the management practices of treatment plants. This is defined as systems that see rather than simply the most important sections of the whole or “bigger picture.” This short essay discusses systematic philosophy and shares the foundational approach to addressing problems and improving consistency.
There are several issues with an improved solution aimed at optimization of critical components without taking into account the effect on the larger whole. The construction of a vehicle is used as an analogy to explain that this can be a challenge. If we are going to take the Rolls Royce engine, the Mercedes transmission, the Lamborghini fuel pump, and the body of an excellent classic, this will not create a vehicle that should have been powered, because, even though each component is best, the car is not (compatible) integrated. In this case, the quality enhancement of key components is seen to continue in the form of interrelated and other key components.
In order to maximize the performance of the whole group, e.g. excellent patient care, boost efforts remain within the entire context. Therefore, not only must modifications to an integral component be taken into account but also how those changes and improvements impact other elements that communicate with it.
There are two different methods in terms of troubleshooting and learning the best to improve mistakes and crashes. There is the reductionist and holistic approach (systems thinking). If mistakes and failures occur, an overly simplistic analysis concentrates on the fault itself and discusses the ‘how’ and origin of the mistake immediately. For eg, when a patient falls while leaving the room, he would suggest the reductionist solution was because of the vulnerability of the patient. There will be a different outcome to a systematic solution. Holistic problem management reviews errors in the wider sense that require moves. Other key aspects of the framework are examined when not “how” a mistake occurred but “why” it happened within the entire sense. Therefore we find a different solution to the case of a patient who falls holistically when he gets out of bed. Hypothetical, why the decline could be attributed to the schedules of the workers that suggested at the time that the unit was lacking staff and that no one could answer the call bell. The patient who wished to use the washroom desperately did not want to wait longer and tried to walk separately even though it was frail and falling. From this basic example only, it is seen how the two methods have very different responses. We may intuitively see that a systemic approach offers responses that help guide quality assurance projects in a whole context.
Peter G. Neumann, Holistic Systems , 2004
