Public Health Outcomes Framework 2013 to 2016 and technical updates – Department of Health [England] – 1 May 2013
Public Health Outcomes Framework 2013 to 2016 and technical updates – Department of Health [England] – 1 May 2013Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Public Health Outcomes Framework 2013 to 2016 and technical updates – Department of Health [England] – 1 May 2013 )
NHS in numbers: key charts – Nuffield Trust – April 2013
“This series of interactive charts illustrates key data on health care spending, hospital activity, performance, prescribing, and NHS staffing and other resources, for England and the rest of the UK where comparable data is available.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on NHS in numbers: key charts – Nuffield Trust – April 2013 )
Measuring What Matters: The Cost vs Values of Health Care – Ivey – International Centre for Health Innvovation – November 2012
Extract from the Executive Summary:
“There is a clear misalignment between what Canadians value, and how Canadian health system performance is measured and funded. Canadian values have shifted substantially in recent years, towards a preference for greater autonomy and empowerment in managing their health care and management. Canadians’ values reflect the desire for a more “personalized” health care system, one that engages every individual patient in a collaborative partnership with health providers, to make decisions that support health, wellness, and quality of life. Yet, health systems are focused on performance management in terms of costs, operational inputs, such as services delivered, or quality measures such
as medication errors, readmissions to hospital, and mortality rates. Health system effectiveness is not evaluated in terms of delivering value to Canadians.
Canadians perceive health care as one of the most fundamentally important features of our society. There have been numerous studies of Canada’s health care system, and in every work to date, the perspectives and views of Canadians have been an important frame of reference for health system renewal and reform.
This white paper builds upon the discussion of past work and considers five main questions:
1. What are Canadians’ core health values?
2. How do values differ among key stakeholders within the sector, and what do they value from their unique health perspectives?
3. Are those publicly articulated values aligned with what is funded or reimbursed?
4. Are those publicly articulated values measured and incented from a health system perspective?
5. How do Canada’s health care values and performance outcomes compare over time to comparator Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations?”
… continuesRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Measuring What Matters: The Cost vs Values of Health Care – Ivey – International Centre for Health Innvovation – November 2012 )
Managing the performance of the health care system – FlagPost – 6 August 2012Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Managing the performance of the health care system – FlagPost – 6 August 2012 )
“This report presents the results of a performance audit that examined the circumstances associated with the alleged manipulation and misreporting of Emergency Department performance information at the Canberra Hospital.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on ACT Auditor General’s report on Emergency Department Performance Information – July 2012 )
Measuring Health System Progress in Reducing Mortality from Noncommunicable Diseases – RAND – May 2012
by Soeren Mattke, Jack C. Chow
“Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) place a heavy burden on developing countries, whose relatively recent adoption of Western-style health behaviors and lifestyle choices has led to increased prevalence of risk factors for NCDs over the past decade. NCDs are compounding the burden of infectious disease on health systems in those countries. In response, the World Health Organization (WHO) has launched several risk reduction initiatives. WHO is drafting a monitoring framework and voluntary targets as the basis for a consultation process with member states. However, the indicators and targets that a global consultation process will produce will inevitably provide high-level, aggregated information, such as progress toward reducing premature NCD mortality. Regional and national decisionmakers and planners, on the other hand, will need more proximal and granular information to track progress toward high-level goals and will be constrained by the resources and demands in their respective jurisdictions. The relative importance of different risk factors and manifest NCDs differs across countries, and so do health systems’ capabilities and resources. Thus, national and regional decisionmakers will need: (1) a comprehensive set of indicators to guide on-the-ground prioritization decisions and track progress toward high-level targets and (2) actionable data to predict the impact of changes in proximal indicators on high-level targets. As a first step, this occasional paper outlines a roadmap toward a comprehensive system for national and regional decisionmakers to (1) track progress toward the key WHO goal of reducing NCD mortality by 25 percent by 2025 and (2) prioritize resources and interventions to achieve that goal.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Measuring Health System Progress in Reducing Mortality from Noncommunicable Diseases – RAND – May 2012 )
The Health System Measurement Project [Website] – US Department of Health and Human Services
The Health System Measurement Project brings together trend data on a limited set of key health system measures from multiple data sources to provide a picture of the status of the U.S. health system.
The Project focuses on ten critical dimensions of our health care system covering the availability, quality, and cost of care, the overall health of Americans, and the dynamism of the system. The Project examines the evolution of these aspects of our system over time. It also assesses the status of these dimensions of the system with respect to subgroups of the population, with a particular emphasis on vulnerable populations.
HHS’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation has developed the Health System Measurement Project to ensure a robust monitoring system through which people inside and outside government can assess how the system is doing and identify areas that need improvement. One important purpose of the Project is to track the consequences of implementation of The Affordable Care Act across this broad set of dimensions of the health system.
About the Topical Areas
The measures are divided into the following ten topical areas:
Access to Care
Cost and Affordability
Health Information Technology
… continuesRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on The Health System Measurement Project [Website] – US Department of Health and Human Services )
Measuring and reporting on health system performance in Canada: Opportunities for improvement – Health Council of Canada – May 2012
“The paper highlights the need for governments to set clear policy goals with both measurable health outcomes and supporting health indicators in order to hold health system leaders accountable for performance. The paper provides recommendations to governments, at the same time highlighting innovative practices across Canada and in the United Kingdom and Australia that can provide a way forward.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Measuring and reporting on health system performance in Canada: Opportunities for improvement – Health Council of Canada – May 2012 )
Health system performance comparison: an agenda for policy, information and research – WHO on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies – 2012
by Peter C. Smith, Irene Papanicolas
• International health system performance comparisons have the potential to provide a rich source of evidence as well as policy influence.
• Country comparisons that are not conducted with properly validated measures and unbiased policy interpretations may prompt adverse policy impacts and so caution is required in the selection of indicators, the methodologies used, and the interpretations made.”
“The Canadian Hospital Reporting Project (CHRP) is a national quality improvement initiative from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). CHRP’s web-based, interactive tool gives hospital decision-makers, policy-makers and Canadians access to indicator results for more than 600 facilities from every province and territory in Canada.
CIHI selected 21 clinical and 9 financial indicators for CHRP, based on their relevance to performance measurement and quality improvement. The selected indicators measure:
Appropriateness of care;
These indicators were chosen after reviewing existing hospital performance indicators and collaborating with experts in the field. The goal of CHRP is to foster quality improvement, learning and action.”
… continues on the siteRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Canadian Hospital Reporting Project (CHRP) – Canadian Institute for Health Information )
AHRQ Quality Indicators™ Toolkit for Hospitals [US] – March 2012
“AHRQ QI Toolkit: How to Improve Hospital Quality and Safety.
Improving Performance on the AHRQ Quality Indicators
This toolkit is designed to help your hospital understand the Quality Indicators (QIs) from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and support your use of them to successfully improve quality and patient safety in your hospital. The toolkit is a general guide to using improvement methods, with a particular focus on the QIs. It focuses on the 17 Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) and the 28 Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs).”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on AHRQ Quality Indicators™ Toolkit for Hospitals [US] – March 2012 )
by Cheryl L. Damberg et al
“The National Quality Forum (NQF), a private, nonprofit membership organization committed to improving health care quality performance measurement and reporting, was awarded a contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a portfolio of quality and efficiency measures. The portfolio of measures would allow the federal government to examine how and whether health care spending is achieving the best results for patients and taxpayers. As part of the scope of work under the HHS contract, NQF was required to conduct an independent evaluation of the uses of NQF-endorsed measures for the purposes of accountability (e.g., public reporting, payment, accreditation, certification) and quality improvement. In September 2010, NQF entered into a contract with the RAND Corporation for RAND to serve as the independent evaluator. This article presents the results of the evaluation study. It describes how performance measures are being used by a wide array of organizations and the types of measures being used for different purposes, summarizes key barriers and facilitators to the use of measures, and identifies opportunities for easing the use of performance measures moving forward.”
An Evaluation of the Use of Performance Measures in Health Care – RAND Health Technical Report – 2011
“NQF [National Quality Forum] engaged the RAND Corporation to conduct an independent examination of the use of performance measures, with particular interest in the use of NQF-endorsed measures. The goal was to better understand
• the current state of performance measure use across the broad spectrum of end-user types
• areas in which gaps in measures exist that hinder the end users’ ability to apply measures to support the achievement of their desired goals
• how the larger measurement enterprise (i.e., measure developers, measure endorsers, foundations and government agencies that support measure development and implementation) might better support the use of performance measures.”