RATIONALE
Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) has strengthened clinical decision-making, but evidence alone cannot ensure that care is delivered safely, consistently, or in a manner that produces outcomes meaningful to patients. Patient safety, Quality Improvement (QI), Learning Health Systems (LHS), and Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) have emerged to address these limitations. Understanding their relationships is important for healthcare systems seeking improvement and patient-centred care.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
To examine the historical development and conceptual relationships among EBM, patient safety, QI, LHS, and VBHC, and to propose an integrated framework for understanding their complementary roles in healthcare quality.
METHOD
A narrative review was conducted using PubMed as a database, supplemented by reference-list searching. Literature published from approximately 1990 to June 2026 was considered. Searches combined terms related to EBM, patient safety, QI, LHS, VBHC, implementation science, systems thinking, shared decision-making, quality of care, and healthcare transformation. Landmark publications, conceptual papers, guidelines, consensus statements, systematic reviews, and original studies were narratively synthesized.
RESULTS
The review identifies a Five-Stage Evolution Framework: EBM establishes what works; patient safety addresses how effective care can be delivered safely; QI enables reliable and continuous improvement; LHS creates feedback loops that allow healthcare systems to learn from routine clinical practice; and VBHC evaluates whether these efforts generate outcomes that matter to patients relative to the resources required. These paradigms are complementary rather than competing approaches. Their integration also requires systems thinking, data literacy, interprofessional collaboration, shared decision-making, and attention to patient values and equity. Challenges include the evidence-to-practice gap, organizational barriers, data quality, algorithmic bias, privacy, and the difficulty of measuring individualized value.
CONCLUSION
Modern healthcare should move beyond isolated quality initiatives toward an integrated system that generates evidence, delivers care safely, continuously learns and improves, and creates meaningful value for patients. The proposed framework is conceptual and requires empirical evaluation.
Takehiro Okabayashi, R. Inada, T. Imai et al.· Journal of Evaluation In Cli...· 0 citations
Abstract Background: Liver regeneration is essential after hepatectomy, but it is frequently impaired in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to cirrhosis, metabolic dysfunction, sarcopenia, malnutrition, aging, and systemic inflammation. Post-hepatectomy liver failure remains a major clinical challenge. Objective: This review summarizes metabolic mechanisms underlying liver regeneration and explores metabolic vulnerabilities in patients with HCC, along with emerging therapeutic strategies to enhance regenerative capacity. Methods: A narrative review of current literature was conducted focusing on hepatic regenerative biology, metabolic reprogramming, and clinical metabolic interventions relevant to perioperative liver care. Results: Liver regeneration is regulated not only by growth factor signaling but also by coordinated metabolic reprogramming, including energy metabolism, lipid oxidation, amino acid homeostasis, mitochondrial function, and inter-organ crosstalk. Patients with HCC often exhibit impaired regenerative metabolism. Emerging interventions include nutritional optimization, branched-chain amino acid supplementation, L-carnitine administration, exercise-based prehabilitation, and modulation of the gut–liver axis. L-carnitine is highlighted as a mitochondrial modulator with potential benefits for hepatic function and muscle preservation. Conclusion: Targeting metabolic pathways represents a promising strategy to enhance liver regeneration. Integrating metabolic biomarkers and personalized interventions may improve perioperative outcomes in HCC patients undergoing hepatectomy.
Takehiro Okabayashi, Motoyasu Tabuchi, Teppei Tokumaru et al.· Nutrition and Cancer· 0 citations