“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 )
Methodological Considerations in Generating Provider Performance Scores for Use in Public Reporting: A Guide for Community Quality Collaboratives – AHRQ – September 2011
“This [white] paper is intended for use by Chartered Value Exchanges (CVEs), community collaboratives, and other organizations interested in creating public reports on the performance of health care providers in their communities. It addresses the issue of inconsistent reports based on the same data and identifies the key methodological decision points that precede publication of a performance report.”
Friedberg MW, Damberg CL. Methodological Considerations in Generating Provider Performance Scores for Use in Public Reporting: A Guide for Community Quality Collaboratives. AHRQ Publication No. 11-0093, September 2011. Prepared by RAND Corporation under Contract No. HHSA290200810037C. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
How This Paper Is Organized
Overarching Methodological Issue: Performance Misclassification
Decisions Encountered During Key Task Number 1: Negotiating Consensus on Goals and “Value Judgments” of Performance Reporting
Decisions Encountered During Key Task Number 2: Selecting the Measures That Will Be Used To Evaluate Provider Performance
Decisions Encountered During Key Task Number 3: Identifying Data Sources and Aggregating Performance Data
Decisions Encountered During Key Task Number 4: Checking Data Quality and Completeness
Decisions Encountered During Key Task Number 5: Computing Provider-Level Performance Scores
Decisions Encountered During Key Task Number 6: Creating Performance Reports
Summary of Methodological Decisions Made by a Sample of CVE Stakeholders
Appendix 1: Validity and Systematic Performance Misclassification
Appendix 2: Performance Misclassification Due to Chance
Welcome to Value for Money (VfM) indicators
“Value for Money (VfM) Indicators is the leading benchmarking tool for assessing value for money in the public sector. HM Treasury specifically recommends collecting and reporting against indicators, for organisations with more than 250 employees.
VfM Indicators has the widest coverage of back office functions, which are under scrutiny in many parts of the public sector at present. You can assess performance of finance, human resources, information and communication technology, estate management, procurement, legal functions and communications.
VfM Indicators will assess your organisation’s performance, and pinpoint its strengths and weaknesses, helping you to make more informed decisions on budget and improvement. The system also provides you with solid, data-related evidence to support decisions. “
“The Fraser Institute’s Hospital Report Card: British Columbia 2011 is constructed in order to contribute to the improvement of inpatient care in British Columbia by providing hospital-specific information about quality of service directly to patients and to the general public. It aims to promote greater accountability within hospitals, thereby stimulating improved performance through independent and objective measurement. This is an interactive web-based report card, and all results and accompanying information are available at our interactive website.” … continues on the siteRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Victorian Health Services Performance – launched 30 June 2011
“The Victorian Health Services Performance website provides statistical information about Victoria’s public hospitals and health services.
You will find information about the hospital system and performance reports on individual hospital and health services as well as statewide data for:
•Quality and Safety
This website is the first step towards increasing the transparency and breadth of health service performance information available to the Victorian public.
Activity and performance information on this site will be updated quarterly and the range of data and information available will be expanded in the near future.”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Delivery System Reform Tracking: A Framework for Understanding Change – Commonwealth Fund – 2 June 2011
The health care delivery system is changing rapidly, with providers forming patient-centered medical homes and exploring the creation of accountable care organizations. Enactment of the Affordable Care Act will likely accelerate these changes. Significant delivery system reforms will simultaneously affect the structures, capabilities, incentives, and outcomes of the delivery system. With so many changes taking place at once, there is a need for a new tool to track progress at the community level. Many of the necessary data elements for a delivery system reform tracking tool are already being collected in various places and by different stakeholders. The authors propose that all elements be brought together in a unified whole to create a detailed picture of delivery system change. This brief provides a rationale for creating such a tool and presents a framework for doing so.”
“New data is now available on the performance of Victorian hospitals not previously available within the public domain.
Publication of this data confirms steps are being taken to increase the transparency and breadth of public Health Services performance reporting and to make more information available to the Victorian public.
The reports contain comprehensive information on Health Service Performance including information on Hospital Bypass and Hospital Early Warning System, Patient Transfer Times and Elective Surgery.
In future months, a wider range of information will be reported and made available through a new and dedicated website to provide information about health services activity and performance.” … continues on the siteRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
“Australian Health Ministers met in Melbourne today and reached in principle agreement on legislation to establish the National Health Performance Authority as the next stage of national health reform.” … continues on the siteRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Author: Department of Health
Following a three month consultation period, this is the final version of the acute oncology measures for inclusion in the Manual of Cancer Services 2008.
Manual for Cancer Services: Network Service User Partnership Group Measures – UK – 7 April 2011
Author: Department of Health
Following a three month consultation period, this is the final version of the Network Service User Partnership Group Measures for inclusion in the Manual of Cancer Services 2008.
“The Resource for Indicator Standards (RIS) is an online catalogue of the technical documentation for health-related indicators. These indicators are used by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) or Local Health Integration Networks to monitor health care system performance. Indicators in RIS are documented in a standard way to promote appropriate use, comparison, and analysis. “Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Performance Measurement for Health System Improvement: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects – European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies – 2009
Book is now free to download
First published 2009
ISBN 978-0-521-11676-3 Hardback
ISBN 978-0-521-13348-7 Paperback
“In a world where there is increasing demand for the performance of health providers to be measured, there is a need for a more strategic vision of the role that performance measurement can play in securing health system improvement. This volume meets this need by presenting the opportunities and challenges associated with performance measurement in a framework that is clear and easy to understand. It examines the various levels at which health system performance is undertaken, the technical instruments and tools available, and the implications using these may have for those charged with the governance of the health system. Technical material is presented in an accessible way and is illustrated with examples from all over the world. Performance Measurement for Health System Improvement is an authoritative and practical guide for policy makers, regulators, patient groups and researchers.
Provides a holistic approach to the performance measurement, covering technical and policy aspects; Draws on experience of health care systems from all over the world; Non-technical language makes it accessible to a wide readership, including policy makers and representative groups.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Innovative Software Cuts Costs and Time for States to Report Hospital Quality Information to the Public – AHRQ – 3 June 2010
Innovative Software Cuts Costs and Time for States to Report Hospital Quality Information to the Public
Press Release Date: June 3, 2010
“The Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS’s) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) today unveiled MONAHRQ—My Own Network Powered by AHRQ—a free, MS® Windows®-based software application that significantly reduces the cost and time a State, hospital or other organization would need to spend to compile, analyze and post data on quality of hospital care, its cost and how that care is used. MONAHRQ allows users to create a customized Web site with data that can be used for internal quality improvement or reporting quality information to the public.
The cost of creating a Web site with this data is estimated to be $300,000 or more, and the time required could be a year, according to States that tested MONAHRQ as it was being developed. With MONAHRQ, that time can be cut to a few days. Currently, many States require that quality data be reported publicly and other States are considering doing so. For example, the Hawaii Health Information Corporation, which tested MONAHRQ, plans to recommend that they use the AHRQ software application for that purpose.
A State, or other organization, referred to as the host user, can download MONAHRQ from AHRQ’s Web site at http://monahrq.ahrq.gov and enter its own hospital administrative data, which includes such elements as patient characteristics, diagnoses, procedures, health insurance type and charges. MONAHRQ processes that information and then creates a Web site that the host user can customize by selecting a specific color scheme, inserting logos and using other features.
“Building on AHRQ’s strong track record of developing innovative quality indicators and hospital reporting tools, MONAHRQ will revolutionize how States and others report data publicly or use it to improve health care quality,” said AHRQ Director Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. “MONAHRQ also will help consumers make informed decisions about hospital care because they will have access to state-of-the art information.”
A Web site created using MONAHRQ will provide information in four areas:
Quality of care for specific hospitals—provides information about patient safety, patient deaths in the hospital and other quality-related issues to answer questions such as, “Which hospitals have the lowest mortality rates after coronary bypass surgery?”
Provision of services by hospital for health conditions and procedures—provides information about the number of patient discharges, charges, costs and length of hospitalizations for specific hospitals to answer questions such as, “Which hospitals perform the largest numbers of hip replacement surgeries? And what is the cost?”
Potentially avoidable hospitalizations—creates maps of county-by-county rates for potentially avoidable hospitalizations to answer questions such as, “Which counties have the highest rates of hospitalization for uncontrolled diabetes? And how much could be saved if these rates were reduced?”
Rates of health conditions and procedures—provides information about the prevalence of diseases or medical procedures through maps of county-by-county rates for selected conditions and procedures to answer questions such as, “Which counties have the highest rates of lung cancer?” ”
…continues on the site
Changing Management Cultures and Organisational Performance in the NHS (OC2) – Research Report – April 2010
Changing Management Cultures and Organisational Performance in the NHS (OC2) – Research Report – April 2010
Produced for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme
prepared by: Russell Mannion et al
“The rhetoric surrounding policy changes in the NHS has, in recent years, extended beyond consideration of structural arrangements and incentive regimes, to encompass suggestions that NHS organisations also need to undergo significant cultural renewal if the desired improvements in quality and performance are to be secured (Department of Health, 2001; Mannion et al. 2005).
Since the election of the New Labour government in 1997, clinical quality, safety and performance have all been the focus of purposeful management intervention alongside broader systemic changes. From 2002 onwards, broader system reform has included a whole raft of pro-market policies, programmes and supporting tactics designed to introduce new incentives for purchasers and providers, including the promotion of a more diversified delivery environment – with an expanded role for independent sector providers and private capital; a new hospital prospective payment system (Payment by Results); and enhanced patient choice. The implementation of such changes is likely to have major cultural consequences, (both intended and unintended) not least because they challenge many deeply held managerial assumptions and professional values that have been affirmed over decades and woven into the fabric of health care delivery (Scott et al. 2003b).
This report details the findings of a three year National Institute of Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme funded project into changing cultures, relationships and performance in the NHS undertaken by an interdisciplinary consortium of researchers based at the Universities of Birmingham, York, St Andrews, Manchester, Durham and King’s College, London. It builds upon (and should be read alongside) the associated SDO report – Measuring and Assessing Organisational Cultures in the NHS – also available on the SDO website (Mannion et al. 2008b).”
…continuesRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )