Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Performance Indicators in the Public Sector: Case Study

4,435

Published on

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,435
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
99
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  1. Case studying: Key performance indicators in public sector By: Tatiana Yadykina
  2. Key Performance Indicators for Australian Public Mental Health Services effective appropriate efficient REPORT OF PERFORMANCE INDICATOR responsive DRAFTING GROUP accessible INFORMATION STRATEGY COMMITTEE AHMAC NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH safe WORKING GROUP continuous capable sustainable
  3. Structure of presentation Introduction of the problem  The National Mental Health Plan 2003-  2008 Developments in performance  indicators for mental health services in Australia Criteria used to evaluate candidate  indicators Summary of performance framework and  proposed indicators
  4. Introduction (1) Key performance indicators are  essential tools for both monitoring and improving the quality of health services. Mental health services have  lagged behind developments of introducing performance indicators.
  5. Introduction (2) The reasons:  unavailability of suitable data  lack of consensus about how fundamental performance measurement concepts should be applied to mental health care
  6. The National Mental Health Plan 2003-2008 Phase 1 – indicators for initial  trial Phase 2 – indicators for  development National Mental Health Report 
  7. Developments in performance indicators for mental health services in Australia Independent approaches of  States and Territories Difficulties for the design of  performance indicators The difference between  definitions and specifications of existing State and Territory performance indicators
  8. Performance indicators may be based on: Inputs – the resources used in producing a  product or service Processes – actions or processes applied  to convert resources into a product or service Outputs – products or services delivered  Outcomes – the outcomes of delivering the  product or service. Outcomes may be short, intermediate, or long term.
  9. Criteria used to evaluate candidate indicators (1) Be worth measuring.  Be measurable for diverse  populations. Be understood by people who need  to act. Be relevant to policy and practice.  Measurement over time will reflect  results of actions. Be feasible to collect and report.  Comply with national processes 
  10. Criteria used to evaluate candidate indicators (2) Reliability.  Validity.  Cover the spectrum of the health issue.  Reflect a balance of indicators for all  appropriate parts of the framework. Identify and respond to new and emerging  issues. Be capable of leading change.  Provide feedback on where the system is  working well, as well as areas for improvement.
  11. Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators (1) Domain – effective  Consumer outcomes  Carer outcomes  Community tenure Domain – appropriate  Compliance with standards  Relevance to client needs
  12. Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators (2) Domain – efficient  Inpatient care  Community care Domain – accessible  Access for those in need  Local access  Emergency response
  13. Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators (3) Domain – continuous  Continuity between providers  Cross-setting continuity  Continuity over time Domain – responsive  Client perceptions of care  Consumer & carer participation
  14. Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators (4) Domain – capable  Provider knowledge and skill  Outcomes orientation Domain – safe Domain – sustainable  Workforce planning  Training investment  Research investment
  15. Balanced emphasis on inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes (1) Measures of input are necessary to  understand the capabilities and structural characteristics of the organization. Measures of process are needed to  determine whether people receive care that is evidenced-based or conforms with consensus expectations about quality.
  16. Balanced emphasis on inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes (2)  Output measures are needed to understand the quantities of services provided and develop efficiency indicators.  Outcome measures are the basis for understanding whether consumers are improving in their clinical status and well being.
  17. Thank you for your attention!!!!!!! You are free to ask any questions!!!!!

×