Suchergebnisse

BackgroundGiven the proliferation and the growing complexity of performance measurement initiatives in many health systems, the Netherlands and Ontario, Canada expressed interests in cross-national comparisons in an effort to promote knowledge transfer and best practise. To support this cross-national learning, a study was undertaken to compare health system performance approaches in The Netherlands with Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe explored the performance assessment framework and system of each constituency, the embeddedness of performance data in management and policy processes, and the interrelationships between the frameworks. Methods used included analysing governmental strategic planning and policy documents, literature and internet searches, comparative descriptive tables, and schematics. Data collection and analysis took place in Ontario and The Netherlands. A workshop to validate and discuss the findings was conducted in Toronto, adding important insights to the study.ResultsBoth Ontario and The Netherlands conceive health system performance within supportive frameworks. However they differ in their assessment approaches. Ontario's Scorecard links performance measurement with strategy, aimed at health system integration. The Dutch Health Care Performance Report (Zorgbalans) does not explicitly link performance with strategy, and focuses on the technical quality of healthcare by measuring dimensions of quality, access, and cost against healthcare needs. A backbone 'five diamond' framework maps both frameworks and articulates the interrelations and overlap between their goals, themes, dimensions and indicators. The workshop yielded more contextual insights and further validated the comparative values of each constituency's performance assessment system.ConclusionTo compare the health system performance approaches between The Netherlands and Ontario, Canada, several important conceptual and contextual issues must be addressed, before even attempting any future content comparisons and benchmarking. Such issues would lend relevant interpretational credibility to international comparative assessments of the two health systems.

BackgroundGiven the proliferation and the growing complexity of performance measurement initiatives in many health systems, the Netherlands and Ontario, Canada expressed interests in cross-national comparisons in an effort to promote knowledge transfer and best practise. To support this cross-national learning, a study was undertaken to compare health system performance approaches in The Netherlands with Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe explored the performance assessment framework and system of each constituency, the embeddedness of performance data in management and policy processes, and the interrelationships between the frameworks. Methods used included analysing governmental strategic planning and policy documents, literature and internet searches, comparative descriptive tables, and schematics. Data collection and analysis took place in Ontario and The Netherlands. A workshop to validate and discuss the findings was conducted in Toronto, adding important insights to the study.ResultsBoth Ontario and The Netherlands conceive health system performance within supportive frameworks. However they differ in their assessment approaches. Ontario's Scorecard links performance measurement with strategy, aimed at health system integration. The Dutch Health Care Performance Report (Zorgbalans) does not explicitly link performance with strategy, and focuses on the technical quality of healthcare by measuring dimensions of quality, access, and cost against healthcare needs. A backbone 'five diamond' framework maps both frameworks and articulates the interrelations and overlap between their goals, themes, dimensions and indicators. The workshop yielded more contextual insights and further validated the comparative values of each constituency's performance assessment system.ConclusionTo compare the health system performance approaches between The Netherlands and Ontario, Canada, several important conceptual and contextual issues must be addressed, before even attempting any future content comparisons and benchmarking. Such ...

Abstract Background Given the proliferation and the growing complexity of performance measurement initiatives in many health systems, the Netherlands and Ontario, Canada expressed interests in cross-national comparisons in an effort to promote knowledge transfer and best practise. To support this cross-national learning, a study was undertaken to compare health system performance approaches in The Netherlands with Ontario, Canada. Methods We explored the performance assessment framework and system of each constituency, the embeddedness of performance data in management and policy processes, and the interrelationships between the frameworks. Methods used included analysing governmental strategic planning and policy documents, literature and internet searches, comparative descriptive tables, and schematics. Data collection and analysis took place in Ontario and The Netherlands. A workshop to validate and discuss the findings was conducted in Toronto, adding important insights to the study. Results Both Ontario and The Netherlands conceive health system performance within supportive frameworks. However they differ in their assessment approaches. Ontario's Scorecard links performance measurement with strategy, aimed at health system integration. The Dutch Health Care Performance Report (Zorgbalans) does not explicitly link performance with strategy, and focuses on the technical quality of healthcare by measuring dimensions of quality, access, and cost against healthcare needs. A backbone 'five diamond' framework maps both frameworks and articulates the interrelations and overlap between their goals, themes, dimensions and indicators. The workshop yielded more contextual insights and further validated the comparative values of each constituency's performance assessment system. Conclusion To compare the health system performance approaches between The Netherlands and Ontario, Canada, several important conceptual and contextual issues must be addressed, before even attempting any future content comparisons and benchmarking. Such issues would lend relevant interpretational credibility to international comparative assessments of the two health systems.

Abstract Background The development and use of performance indicators (PI) in the field of public mental health care (PMHC) has increased rapidly in the last decade. To gain insight in the current state of PI for PMHC in nations and regions around the world, we conducted a structured review of publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals supplemented by a systematic inventory of PI published in policy documents by (non-) governmental organizations. Methods Publications on PI for PMHC were identified through database- and internet searches. Final selection was based on review of the full content of the publications. Publications were ordered by nation or region and chronologically. Individual PI were classified by development method, assessment level, care domain, performance dimension, diagnostic focus, and data source. Finally, the evidence on feasibility, data reliability, and content-, criterion-, and construct validity of the PI was evaluated. Results A total of 106 publications were included in the sample. The majority of the publications (n = 65) were peer-reviewed journal articles and 66 publications specifically dealt with performance of PMHC in the United States. The objectives of performance measurement vary widely from internal quality improvement to increasing transparency and accountability. The characteristics of 1480 unique PI were assessed. The majority of PI is based on stakeholder opinion, assesses care processes, is not specific to any diagnostic group, and utilizes administrative data sources. The targeted quality dimensions varied widely across and within nations depending on local professional or political definitions and interests. For all PI some evidence for the content validity and feasibility has been established. Data reliability, criterion- and construct validity have rarely been assessed. Only 18 publications on criterion validity were included. These show significant associations in the expected direction on the majority of PI, but mixed results on a noteworthy number of others. Conclusions PI have been developed for a broad range of care levels, domains, and quality dimensions of PMHC. To ensure their usefulness for the measurement of PMHC performance and advancement of transparency, accountability and quality improvement in PMHC, future research should focus on assessment of the psychometric properties of PI.

Abstract Background The development and use of performance indicators (PI) in the field of public mental health care (PMHC) has increased rapidly in the last decade. To gain insight in the current state of PI for PMHC in nations and regions around the world, we conducted a structured review of publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals supplemented by a systematic inventory of PI published in policy documents by (non-) governmental organizations. Methods Publications on PI for PMHC were identified through database- and internet searches. Final selection was based on review of the full content of the publications. Publications were ordered by nation or region and chronologically. Individual PI were classified by development method, assessment level, care domain, performance dimension, diagnostic focus, and data source. Finally, the evidence on feasibility, data reliability, and content-, criterion-, and construct validity of the PI was evaluated. Results A total of 106 publications were included in the sample. The majority of the publications (n = 65) were peer-reviewed journal articles and 66 publications specifically dealt with performance of PMHC in the United States. The objectives of performance measurement vary widely from internal quality improvement to increasing transparency and accountability. The characteristics of 1480 unique PI were assessed. The majority of PI is based on stakeholder opinion, assesses care processes, is not specific to any diagnostic group, and utilizes administrative data sources. The targeted quality dimensions varied widely across and within nations depending on local professional or political definitions and interests. For all PI some evidence for the content validity and feasibility has been established. Data reliability, criterion- and construct validity have rarely been assessed. Only 18 publications on criterion validity were included. These show significant associations in the expected direction on the majority of PI, but mixed results on a noteworthy number of others. Conclusions PI have been developed for a broad range of care levels, domains, and quality dimensions of PMHC. To ensure their usefulness for the measurement of PMHC performance and advancement of transparency, accountability and quality improvement in PMHC, future research should focus on assessment of the psychometric properties of PI.

BackgroundThe commitment of hospital managers plays a key role in decisions regarding investments in quality improvement (QI) and the implementation of quality improvement systems (QIS). With regard to the concept of social capital, successful cooperation and coordination among hospital management board members is strongly influenced by commonly shared values and mutual trust. The purpose of this study is to investigate the reliability and validity of a survey scale designed to assess Social Capital within hospital management boards (SOCAPO-B) in European hospitals.MethodsData were collected as part of the EU funded mixed-method project "Deepening our understanding of quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" from 210 hospitals in 7 European countries (France, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey). The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) completed the SOCAPO-B scale (six-item survey, numeric scale, 1='strongly disagree' to 4='strongly agree') regarding their perceptions of social capital within the hospital management board. We investigated the factor structure of the social capital scale using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, while construct validity was assessed through Pearson's correlation coefficients between the scale items.ResultsA total of 188 hospitals participated in the DUQuE-study. Of these, 177 CEOs completed the questionnaire(172 observations for social capital) Hospital CEOs perceive relatively high social capital among hospital management boards (average SOCAPO-B mean of 3.2, SD = 0.61). The exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 1-factor-model with Cronbach's alpha of 0.91. Pearson's correlation coefficients between the single scale items ranged from 0.48 to 0.68.ConclusionsThe SOCAPO-B-scale can be used to obtain reliable and valid measurements of social capital in European hospital management boards, at least from the CEO's point of view. The brevity of the scale enables it to be a cost-effective and tool for measuring social capital in hospital management boards.Trial registrationThis validation study was not registered.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies.DesignA cross-sectional, multilevelStudy designthat surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit.SettingRandomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey).ParticipantsHospital quality managers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012.Main outcome measuresFour items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level.ResultsCurrent levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, multilevel STUDY DESIGN: that surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit. SETTING: Randomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). PARTICIPANTS: Hospital quality managers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level. RESULTS: Current levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect.

The expansion in the scope, scale, and sources of data on the wider social determinants of health (SDH) in the last decades could bridge gaps in information available for decision-making. However, challenges remain in making data widely available, accessible, and useful towards improving population health. While traditional, government-supported data sources and comparable data are most often used to characterize social determinants, there are still capacity and management constraints on data availability and use. Conversely, privately held data may not be shared. This study reviews and discusses the nature, sources, and uses of data on SDH, with illustrations from two middle-income countries: Kenya and the Philippines. The review highlights opportunities presented by new data sources, including the use of big data technologies, to capture data on social determinants that can be useful to inform population health. We conducted a search between October 2010 and September 2020 for grey and scientific publications on social determinants using a search strategy in PubMed and a manual snowball search. We assessed data sources and the data environment in both Kenya and the Philippines. We found limited evidence of the use of new sources of data to study the wider SDH, as most of the studies available used traditional sources. There was also no evidence of qualitative big data being used. Kenya has more publications using new data sources, except on the labor determinant, than the Philippines. The Philippines has a more consistent distribution of the use of new data sources across the HEALTHY determinants than Kenya, where there is greater variation of the number of publications across determinants. The results suggest that both countries use limited SDH data from new data sources. This limited use could be due to a number of factors including the absence of standardized indicators of SDH, inadequate trust and acceptability of data collection methods, and limited infrastructure to pool, analyze, and translate data.

Depression accounts for a large share of the global disease burden, with an estimated 264 million people globally suffering from depression. Despite being one of the most common kinds of mental health (MH) disorders, much about depression remains unknown. There are limited data about depression, in terms of its occurrence, distribution, and wider social determinants. This work examined the use of novel data sources for assessing the scope and social determinants of depression, with a view to informing the reduction of the global burden of depression.This study focused on new and traditional sources of data on depression and its social determinants in two middle-income countries (LMICs), namely, Brazil and India. We identified data sources using a combination of a targeted PubMed search, Google search, expert consultations, and snowball sampling of the relevant literature published between October 2010 and September 2020. Our search focused on data sources on the following HEALTHY subset of determinants: healthcare (H), education (E), access to healthy choices (A), labor/employment (L), transportation (T), housing (H), and income (Y).Despite the emergence of a variety of data sources, their use in the study of depression and its HEALTHY determinants in India and Brazil are still limited. Survey-based data are still the most widely used source. In instances where new data sources are used, the most commonly used data sources include social media (twitter data in particular), geographic information systems/global positioning systems (GIS/GPS), mobile phone, and satellite imagery. Often, the new data sources are used in conjunction with traditional sources of data. In Brazil, the limited use of new data sources to study depression and its HEALTHY determinants may be linked to (a) the government's outsized role in coordinating healthcare delivery and controlling the data system, thus limiting innovation that may be expected from the private sector; (b) the government routinely collecting data on depression and other MH disorders (and therefore, does not see the need for other data sources); and (c) insufficient prioritization of MH as a whole. In India, the limited use of new data sources to study depression and its HEALTHY determinants could be a function of (a) the lack of appropriate regulation and incentives to encourage data sharing by and within the private sector, (b) absence of purposeful data collection at subnational levels, and (c) inadequate prioritization of MH. There is a continuing gap in the collection and analysis of data on depression, possibly reflecting the limited priority accorded to mental health as a whole. The relatively limited use of data to inform our understanding of the HEALTHY determinants of depression suggests a substantial need for support of independent research using new data sources. Finally, there is a need to revisit the universal health coverage (UHC) frameworks, as these frameworks currently do not include depression and other mental health-related indicators so as to enable tracking of progress (or lack thereof) on such indicators.

Using web-based survey data collected June - August 2018 from the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) members, we characterized numerous dimensions of social identity and lived experience, and assessed relationships between these characteristics and perceptions of inclusion and society participation. We quantified associations between characteristics, feeling very welcomed, high (top 25th percentile) self-initiated participation, and any (top 10th percentile) society-initiated participation. Racial/ethnic and religious minority categories were blinded to preserve anonymity and we accounted for missing data. Most 2018 SER members (n = 1631) were white (62%) or female (66%). Females with racial/ethnic non-response were least likely, while white males were most likely to report feeling very welcomed. Members who did not report race, identified with a specific racial/ethnic minority, or were politically conservative/right-leaning were less likely than white or liberal/left-leaning members to have high self-initiated participation. Women and individuals of a specific racial/ethnic minority or minority religious affiliations were less likely to participate in events initiated by the society. These data represent a baseline for assessing trends and the impact of future initiatives aimed at improving diversity, inclusion, representation and participation within SER.

Using web-based survey data collected June - August 2018 from the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) members, we characterized numerous dimensions of social identity and lived experience, and assessed relationships between these characteristics and perceptions of inclusion and society participation. We quantified associations between characteristics, feeling very welcomed, high (top 25th percentile) self-initiated participation, and any (top 10th percentile) society-initiated participation. Racial/ethnic and religious minority categories were blinded to preserve anonymity and we accounted for missing data. Most 2018 SER members (n = 1631) were white (62%) or female (66%). Females with racial/ethnic non-response were least likely, while white males were most likely to report feeling very welcomed. Members who did not report race, identified with a specific racial/ethnic minority, or were politically conservative/right-leaning were less likely than white or liberal/left-leaning members to have high self-initiated participation. Women and individuals of a specific racial/ethnic minority or minority religious affiliations were less likely to participate in events initiated by the society. These data represent a baseline for assessing trends and the impact of future initiatives aimed at improving diversity, inclusion, representation and participation within SER.

Scopus ID: 84922218097 PMID: 24671120 WOS:000335921700003 ; RESULTS: Data was gathered from 188 hospitals in 7 participating countries. The overall participation and response rate were between 75% and 100% for the assessed measures. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study assessing relation between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The study involved a large number of respondents and achieved high response rates. This work will serve to develop guidance in how to assess quality management and makes recommendations on the best ways to improve quality in healthcare for hospital stakeholders, payers, researchers, and policy makers throughout the EU. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: This paper provides an overview of the DUQuE (Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe) project, the first study across multiple countries of the European Union (EU) to assess relationships between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The paper describes the conceptual framework and methods applied, highlighting the novel features of this study. DESIGN: DUQuE was designed as a multi-level cross-sectional study with data collection at hospital, pathway, professional and patient level in eight countries. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We aimed to collect data for the assessment of hospital-wide constructs from up to 30 randomly selected hospitals in each country, and additional data at pathway and patient level in 12 of these 30. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comprehensive conceptual framework was developed to account for the multiple levels that influence hospital performance and patient outcomes. We assessed hospital-specific constructs (organizational culture and professional involvement), clinical pathway constructs (the organization of care processes for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries), patient-specific processes and outcomes (clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience) and external constructs that could modify hospital quality (external assessment and perceived external pressure). ; publishersversion ; published

Introduction and objectiveThis paper provides an overview of the DUQuE (Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe) project, the first study across multiple countries of the European Union (EU) to assess relationships between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The paper describes the conceptual framework and methods applied, highlighting the novel features of this study.DesignDUQuE was designed as a multi-level cross-sectional study with data collection at hospital, pathway, professional and patient level in eight countries.Setting and participantsWe aimed to collect data for the assessment of hospital-wide constructs from up to 30 randomly selected hospitals in each country, and additional data at pathway and patient level in 12 of these 30.Main outcome measuresA comprehensive conceptual framework was developed to account for the multiple levels that influence hospital performance and patient outcomes. We assessed hospital-specific constructs (organizational culture and professional involvement), clinical pathway constructs (the organization of care processes for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries), patient-specific processes and outcomes (clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience) and external constructs that could modify hospital quality (external assessment and perceived external pressure).ResultsData was gathered from 188 hospitals in 7 participating countries. The overall participation and response rate were between 75% and 100% for the assessed measures.ConclusionsThis is the first study assessing relation between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The study involved a large number of respondents and achieved high response rates. This work will serve to develop guidance in how to assess quality management and makes recommendations on the best ways to improve quality in healthcare for hospital stakeholders, payers, researchers, and policy makers throughout the EU.