This document summarizes two workshops focused on developing a framework for hospital performance assessment in Europe.
The workshops refined the conceptual model of hospital performance to include six key dimensions and their sub-dimensions. They selected a draft set of 25 core performance indicators and a broader set of tailored indicators from over 200 options based on criteria like importance, validity, and data availability.
Feedback from an 11-country survey informed indicator selection. The workshops also discussed strategies for piloting the indicator dashboard, including roles for different stakeholders and ensuring the indicators support quality improvement. Finalizing the balanced dashboard and preparing for its pilot implementation were the main outcomes.
Quality in healthcare refers to adhering to predetermined specifications and standards to meet patient needs. Over time, quality practices evolved from craftsmanship to focusing on processes through thinkers like Shewhart and Deming. Donabedian introduced structure-process-outcome measures for assessing quality. National and international organizations like JCAH, ISO, and NABH were formed to standardize healthcare quality. NABH accreditation involves an application process, onsite assessments, and meeting standards in areas like patient care, management, and information systems to certify high quality care.
The document discusses hospital accreditation in India. It defines hospital accreditation and outlines its key driving factors like consumer protection acts. The benefits of accreditation include ensuring quality care for patients, attracting foreign patients, and quality assurance. The major accrediting bodies in India are the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals (NABH) and the Quality Council of India (QCI). NABH has 10 chapters and 100 standards covering areas like patient care, medication management, and infection control. Benefits of NABH accreditation include improved patient outcomes and satisfaction. The document also summarizes two research studies on the impacts and effectiveness of healthcare accreditation standards.
The document discusses quality improvement in hospitals. It notes that quality improvement (QI) requires sustained leadership, extensive training, robust measurement systems, and a culture receptive to change. It outlines six dimensions of healthcare quality: safety, effectiveness, appropriateness, access, patient satisfaction, and efficiency. Efficiency in healthcare involves deriving maximum benefit from available resources through technical and allocative efficiency. Common causes of medical errors include communication problems, inadequate information flow, human factors, and organizational issues. Many methods can be used to detect adverse events, both passive and active surveillance. Improvement starts with identifying an area for improvement through asking questions. Models for quality improvement include PDCA, Lean, Six Sigma, and change management. Measurement is key to
Quality assurance aims to close the gap between actual health care performance and desirable outcomes through systematic activities like setting standards, monitoring compliance, and improving quality. It benefits clients through better health outcomes and satisfaction, providers through a more satisfying work environment, and institutions through higher patient satisfaction and reputation. Ensuring quality requires perspectives from communities, providers, and managers to meet stakeholder needs.
An introductory overview of the basic concepts of Healthcare Quality, a starter for beginners.
Prepared in 2014 for the new staff of the Quality Management Department in King Saud University Medical City in Riyadh as a part of their capacity building plan.
Acknowledgments:
*Dr. Magdy Gamal Yousef, MBBCh, MS, CPHQ - for his contribution in the scientific content
**Ms. Maram Baksh, MS, CPHQ - for the design of the full HCQ capacity building plan in KSUMC
This document discusses quality control in healthcare. It defines quality healthcare and how it is measured using indicators of structure, process, and outcomes. Evidence shows the need to improve quality through reducing errors and inappropriate care. Quality can be achieved by either building or inspecting it, using quality assurance or quality improvement approaches. Factors influencing quality include provider skills, system structure, resources, and education. Tools to improve quality include education, guidelines, and peer review. A comprehensive strategy is needed using incentives, data monitoring, patient empowerment, standards, and information systems to support continuous quality development.
Accreditation as a Strategy / Tool for Hospital Quality Service ImprovementReynaldo Joson
The document discusses hospital accreditation as a strategy for quality improvement, defining terms like accreditation, certification, and compliance. It examines standards for accreditation in the Philippines from organizations like PhilHealth, JCI, ISO, and more. The document recommends that hospitals seek accreditation from PhilHealth first to establish a foundation before pursuing other international standards.
This document discusses quality assurance and patient safety in healthcare delivery. It emphasizes that quality assurance through strategies like accreditation, certification and licensure is important to ensure safety for patients and is a core component of delivering high quality healthcare. Ensuring patient safety requires assessing factors like medical errors, developing a culture of safety and continuous quality improvement. Adopting patient safety programs and strategies like TeamSTEPPS can help healthcare systems focus on preventing errors and learning from any that occur to provide safer care.
Quality in healthcare refers to adhering to predetermined specifications and standards to meet patient needs. Over time, quality practices evolved from craftsmanship to focusing on processes through thinkers like Shewhart and Deming. Donabedian introduced structure-process-outcome measures for assessing quality. National and international organizations like JCAH, ISO, and NABH were formed to standardize healthcare quality. NABH accreditation involves an application process, onsite assessments, and meeting standards in areas like patient care, management, and information systems to certify high quality care.
The document discusses hospital accreditation in India. It defines hospital accreditation and outlines its key driving factors like consumer protection acts. The benefits of accreditation include ensuring quality care for patients, attracting foreign patients, and quality assurance. The major accrediting bodies in India are the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals (NABH) and the Quality Council of India (QCI). NABH has 10 chapters and 100 standards covering areas like patient care, medication management, and infection control. Benefits of NABH accreditation include improved patient outcomes and satisfaction. The document also summarizes two research studies on the impacts and effectiveness of healthcare accreditation standards.
The document discusses quality improvement in hospitals. It notes that quality improvement (QI) requires sustained leadership, extensive training, robust measurement systems, and a culture receptive to change. It outlines six dimensions of healthcare quality: safety, effectiveness, appropriateness, access, patient satisfaction, and efficiency. Efficiency in healthcare involves deriving maximum benefit from available resources through technical and allocative efficiency. Common causes of medical errors include communication problems, inadequate information flow, human factors, and organizational issues. Many methods can be used to detect adverse events, both passive and active surveillance. Improvement starts with identifying an area for improvement through asking questions. Models for quality improvement include PDCA, Lean, Six Sigma, and change management. Measurement is key to
Quality assurance aims to close the gap between actual health care performance and desirable outcomes through systematic activities like setting standards, monitoring compliance, and improving quality. It benefits clients through better health outcomes and satisfaction, providers through a more satisfying work environment, and institutions through higher patient satisfaction and reputation. Ensuring quality requires perspectives from communities, providers, and managers to meet stakeholder needs.
An introductory overview of the basic concepts of Healthcare Quality, a starter for beginners.
Prepared in 2014 for the new staff of the Quality Management Department in King Saud University Medical City in Riyadh as a part of their capacity building plan.
Acknowledgments:
*Dr. Magdy Gamal Yousef, MBBCh, MS, CPHQ - for his contribution in the scientific content
**Ms. Maram Baksh, MS, CPHQ - for the design of the full HCQ capacity building plan in KSUMC
This document discusses quality control in healthcare. It defines quality healthcare and how it is measured using indicators of structure, process, and outcomes. Evidence shows the need to improve quality through reducing errors and inappropriate care. Quality can be achieved by either building or inspecting it, using quality assurance or quality improvement approaches. Factors influencing quality include provider skills, system structure, resources, and education. Tools to improve quality include education, guidelines, and peer review. A comprehensive strategy is needed using incentives, data monitoring, patient empowerment, standards, and information systems to support continuous quality development.
Accreditation as a Strategy / Tool for Hospital Quality Service ImprovementReynaldo Joson
The document discusses hospital accreditation as a strategy for quality improvement, defining terms like accreditation, certification, and compliance. It examines standards for accreditation in the Philippines from organizations like PhilHealth, JCI, ISO, and more. The document recommends that hospitals seek accreditation from PhilHealth first to establish a foundation before pursuing other international standards.
This document discusses quality assurance and patient safety in healthcare delivery. It emphasizes that quality assurance through strategies like accreditation, certification and licensure is important to ensure safety for patients and is a core component of delivering high quality healthcare. Ensuring patient safety requires assessing factors like medical errors, developing a culture of safety and continuous quality improvement. Adopting patient safety programs and strategies like TeamSTEPPS can help healthcare systems focus on preventing errors and learning from any that occur to provide safer care.
Medical audit is a systematic evaluation of medical care to improve patient outcomes. It involves reviewing medical records against criteria to identify areas for improvement. The key aspects that can be audited include structure, processes, and outcomes of care. Medical audit aims to ensure best possible care, evidence-based practice, and implementation of initiatives. It benefits patients through reduced suffering and ensures safety. Hospitals should establish medical audit committees and collect data to facilitate the audit process. Audits help practitioners identify weaknesses and make corrections to enhance quality of care.
The presentation describes in brief the patients need, expectations and how to develop the patient care and feedback system to obtain maximum patient satisfaction.
The document discusses the planning and organization of a medical records department in a hospital. It begins by defining medical records and outlining their purposes for patients, doctors, hospitals, and research. It then describes how to plan and organize the department, including establishing sections for admissions, central records, and outpatient records. Staffing requirements are provided for a 500-bed hospital. Physical facility needs are also outlined. The document concludes by explaining the process of medical record flow upon patient admission.
Utilization management is the evaluation of health care services, procedures, and facilities to determine their medical necessity, appropriateness, and efficiency according to established guidelines and health plan provisions. It aims to ensure effective and efficient use of health care resources and delivery of high quality, medically necessary care. Utilization management techniques include prospective review, concurrent review, retrospective review, and pre-certification of services. It utilizes clinical guidelines like McKesson's InterQual Criteria and Milliman Care Guidelines to standardize decision making. The goals of utilization management are to improve health outcomes, reduce over- and under-utilization of services, and lower health care costs.
Implementation of quality improvement program in hospitalsLallu Joseph
A quality improvement program in hospitals aims to continuously monitor and improve quality through systematic activities organized by the hospital. The document outlines the steps to implement a quality improvement program which includes selecting a quality improvement project, assembling a team, developing aim and measure statements, identifying change ideas by analyzing current processes, testing changes, and sustaining improvements. The goal is to improve patient outcomes, clinical and managerial processes, and safety through engaging staff and using a systematic approach of planning, testing, and measuring changes.
The document provides a comparison of quality indicators between the 4th and 3rd editions of the NABH standards. It summarizes the key changes made to various quality indicators for monitoring access to care, care of patients, medication management, infection control, CQI processes, and other areas. For most indicators, the definitions and formulas for calculation remain the same between the editions, while some new indicators were added and the frequency of data collection was standardized in the 4th edition.
This document provides an overview of medical audit, including:
- Definitions of medical audit as the retrospective evaluation and analysis of medical records to monitor clinical performance.
- The history of medical audit from ancient codes to its modern establishment in India in 2007 through the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals.
- The purposes of medical audit which include planning improvements, ensuring regulatory standards, and assessing health program effectiveness.
HEALTH SECTOR TRANSFORMATION IN QUALITYMarkos Paulos
This document provides guidelines for quality improvement in Ethiopian health facilities. It discusses key quality improvement concepts like quality planning, improvement, and control. Quality is defined as care that is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. Quality improvement is presented as a cyclical process involving setting standards, assessing performance against standards, identifying and prioritizing problems, analyzing causes, developing solutions, and implementing and evaluating action plans. The principles of client focus, provider focus, systems approach, teamwork, effective communication, and data use are also outlined.
Case Study on Discharge Process and Turnaround Time-2022.pptxDRTRUPTISONTHALIA
The document analyzes the discharge process at Apollo Hospital in Ahmedabad, finding that the average time for discharge is over 500 minutes which exceeds their 120 minute standard. It identifies delays occurring in the pre-billing, billing, and post-billing phases, and recommends improvements like planning discharges, coordinating staff, and updating bills daily to reduce turnaround times.
The document discusses quality assurance in healthcare, including defining quality, measuring it through indicators, improving quality through approaches like total quality management and continual improvement, and ensuring quality through principles like transparency, evidence-based practice, and accountability. It also addresses important dimensions of quality like safety, effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility, and patient-centeredness.
Systems of health care service delivery and methods of quality assurance vary throughout the world. Proposals for quality improvement should include accreditation, licensure, and certification to comprehensively maintain and improve quality, ensure public safety, and establish entry requirements for health care professionals and organizations. Quality in health care means doing the right thing at the right time in the right way for the right person to achieve the best possible results.
Acht the role of hospital board membersDavid Levien
The document provides an introduction to the role and responsibilities of healthcare boards of trustees. It discusses the typical duties of boards which include governance, oversight of the CEO, financial resources, budgets, and performance. For healthcare boards specifically, their unique duties include fiduciary responsibility for quality of patient care, regulatory compliance, and operating within governmental rules. The board has gravity of responsibility and can be held individually liable for lapses in safety, quality or compliance. The board must set the tone from the top for these issues. The document then reviews healthcare system operations including the value chain and goals to improve outcomes, safety, staffing and financial performance. It provides historical context for how boards of directors developed from early European examples like the Catholic Church,
This document provides guidelines for medical equipment management in Ethiopian hospitals. It outlines standards for effective medical equipment management, including establishing a medical equipment management unit, committee, and maintenance workshop. Guidelines are provided for inventory and maintenance of equipment, as well as procurement, training, budgeting, and disposal. The aim is to improve management of medical technologies and increase the functionality of equipment to strengthen healthcare delivery in Ethiopia.
The document discusses key aspects of quality in healthcare. It defines quality as services that increase the probability of desired health outcomes and follow best practices. There are three aspects of quality - measurable, appreciative, and perceptive. The perception of quality is most influenced by caring staff, physical environment, and physician competence rather than new technology. Quality care positively affects patients and is defined by dimensions like safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. Quality management principles center around leadership, data-driven decisions, customer focus, and continuous improvement.
The document discusses Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation. It provides information on what accreditation is, the benefits of accreditation, and an introduction to JCI. Some key points include:
- Accreditation is a voluntary process where an independent entity assesses a healthcare organization against set standards to improve safety and quality.
- Benefits of accreditation include improving public trust, establishing a safe work environment, and creating a culture of continuous learning.
- JCI is a US-based nonprofit that sets international standards for healthcare providers. Over 820 hospitals in 47 countries are JCI-accredited.
- The JCI accreditation process involves surveys to evaluate
Quality assurance programs overview in government hospitalUpendra Kushwah
The document discusses quality assurance in healthcare. It defines quality as meeting predetermined standards and customer expectations through minimizing variations and standardization. It outlines aims to ensure access to quality health services and satisfaction among users. Key aspects of quality include effectiveness, efficiency, equity, safety, timeliness and patient-centeredness. The document then provides details on quality assurance programs and assessments at the district, state and national level including formation of quality teams, indicators, audits, certifications and more. It discusses several specific quality programs like LaQshya for maternal and child health, SUMAN for maternal healthcare and Kayakalp for cleanliness in public health facilities.
The document discusses the evolution of quality management in healthcare. It describes the contributions of Walter Shewhart, William Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and Philip Crosby to developing concepts of quality management. It defines key terms like quality, outlines the three aspects of quality care, and lists important dimensions of quality like appropriateness, availability, and safety. Finally, it introduces the concept of value as quality of care divided by cost.
The document summarizes the organization and importance of medical records in a hospital setting. It discusses the components and flow of medical records, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the medical records department. Key points include that the medical record documents patient care for clinical, legal, and administrative purposes. It outlines the various sections that make up a medical record and how the records move from registration to the central filing unit.
The document defines key performance indicators (KPIs) as quantifiable measures that help companies gauge their performance against strategic goals. KPIs vary by industry but generally measure aspects like sales, costs, and quality. The document outlines objectives for KPIs like improving understanding and awareness of performance. It also discusses characteristics of good KPIs like being specific, measurable, and time-bound. Finally, the document provides examples of common KPIs for industries like shipping/logistics and infrastructure development.
Riverview Community Hospital is assessing its financial performance against competitors in its area. The assistant was tasked with analyzing Riverview's financial statements from 2005-2009. While total revenues increased each year despite new competition, Riverview's profit margins and asset management ratios declined slightly. Strengths included above average current and total margins, but weaknesses included below average debt management. The assistant recommends Riverview increase local marketing, lower outpatient costs, and expand inpatient and outpatient services to improve its financial condition against competitors.
Medical audit is a systematic evaluation of medical care to improve patient outcomes. It involves reviewing medical records against criteria to identify areas for improvement. The key aspects that can be audited include structure, processes, and outcomes of care. Medical audit aims to ensure best possible care, evidence-based practice, and implementation of initiatives. It benefits patients through reduced suffering and ensures safety. Hospitals should establish medical audit committees and collect data to facilitate the audit process. Audits help practitioners identify weaknesses and make corrections to enhance quality of care.
The presentation describes in brief the patients need, expectations and how to develop the patient care and feedback system to obtain maximum patient satisfaction.
The document discusses the planning and organization of a medical records department in a hospital. It begins by defining medical records and outlining their purposes for patients, doctors, hospitals, and research. It then describes how to plan and organize the department, including establishing sections for admissions, central records, and outpatient records. Staffing requirements are provided for a 500-bed hospital. Physical facility needs are also outlined. The document concludes by explaining the process of medical record flow upon patient admission.
Utilization management is the evaluation of health care services, procedures, and facilities to determine their medical necessity, appropriateness, and efficiency according to established guidelines and health plan provisions. It aims to ensure effective and efficient use of health care resources and delivery of high quality, medically necessary care. Utilization management techniques include prospective review, concurrent review, retrospective review, and pre-certification of services. It utilizes clinical guidelines like McKesson's InterQual Criteria and Milliman Care Guidelines to standardize decision making. The goals of utilization management are to improve health outcomes, reduce over- and under-utilization of services, and lower health care costs.
Implementation of quality improvement program in hospitalsLallu Joseph
A quality improvement program in hospitals aims to continuously monitor and improve quality through systematic activities organized by the hospital. The document outlines the steps to implement a quality improvement program which includes selecting a quality improvement project, assembling a team, developing aim and measure statements, identifying change ideas by analyzing current processes, testing changes, and sustaining improvements. The goal is to improve patient outcomes, clinical and managerial processes, and safety through engaging staff and using a systematic approach of planning, testing, and measuring changes.
The document provides a comparison of quality indicators between the 4th and 3rd editions of the NABH standards. It summarizes the key changes made to various quality indicators for monitoring access to care, care of patients, medication management, infection control, CQI processes, and other areas. For most indicators, the definitions and formulas for calculation remain the same between the editions, while some new indicators were added and the frequency of data collection was standardized in the 4th edition.
This document provides an overview of medical audit, including:
- Definitions of medical audit as the retrospective evaluation and analysis of medical records to monitor clinical performance.
- The history of medical audit from ancient codes to its modern establishment in India in 2007 through the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals.
- The purposes of medical audit which include planning improvements, ensuring regulatory standards, and assessing health program effectiveness.
HEALTH SECTOR TRANSFORMATION IN QUALITYMarkos Paulos
This document provides guidelines for quality improvement in Ethiopian health facilities. It discusses key quality improvement concepts like quality planning, improvement, and control. Quality is defined as care that is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. Quality improvement is presented as a cyclical process involving setting standards, assessing performance against standards, identifying and prioritizing problems, analyzing causes, developing solutions, and implementing and evaluating action plans. The principles of client focus, provider focus, systems approach, teamwork, effective communication, and data use are also outlined.
Case Study on Discharge Process and Turnaround Time-2022.pptxDRTRUPTISONTHALIA
The document analyzes the discharge process at Apollo Hospital in Ahmedabad, finding that the average time for discharge is over 500 minutes which exceeds their 120 minute standard. It identifies delays occurring in the pre-billing, billing, and post-billing phases, and recommends improvements like planning discharges, coordinating staff, and updating bills daily to reduce turnaround times.
The document discusses quality assurance in healthcare, including defining quality, measuring it through indicators, improving quality through approaches like total quality management and continual improvement, and ensuring quality through principles like transparency, evidence-based practice, and accountability. It also addresses important dimensions of quality like safety, effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility, and patient-centeredness.
Systems of health care service delivery and methods of quality assurance vary throughout the world. Proposals for quality improvement should include accreditation, licensure, and certification to comprehensively maintain and improve quality, ensure public safety, and establish entry requirements for health care professionals and organizations. Quality in health care means doing the right thing at the right time in the right way for the right person to achieve the best possible results.
Acht the role of hospital board membersDavid Levien
The document provides an introduction to the role and responsibilities of healthcare boards of trustees. It discusses the typical duties of boards which include governance, oversight of the CEO, financial resources, budgets, and performance. For healthcare boards specifically, their unique duties include fiduciary responsibility for quality of patient care, regulatory compliance, and operating within governmental rules. The board has gravity of responsibility and can be held individually liable for lapses in safety, quality or compliance. The board must set the tone from the top for these issues. The document then reviews healthcare system operations including the value chain and goals to improve outcomes, safety, staffing and financial performance. It provides historical context for how boards of directors developed from early European examples like the Catholic Church,
This document provides guidelines for medical equipment management in Ethiopian hospitals. It outlines standards for effective medical equipment management, including establishing a medical equipment management unit, committee, and maintenance workshop. Guidelines are provided for inventory and maintenance of equipment, as well as procurement, training, budgeting, and disposal. The aim is to improve management of medical technologies and increase the functionality of equipment to strengthen healthcare delivery in Ethiopia.
The document discusses key aspects of quality in healthcare. It defines quality as services that increase the probability of desired health outcomes and follow best practices. There are three aspects of quality - measurable, appreciative, and perceptive. The perception of quality is most influenced by caring staff, physical environment, and physician competence rather than new technology. Quality care positively affects patients and is defined by dimensions like safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. Quality management principles center around leadership, data-driven decisions, customer focus, and continuous improvement.
The document discusses Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation. It provides information on what accreditation is, the benefits of accreditation, and an introduction to JCI. Some key points include:
- Accreditation is a voluntary process where an independent entity assesses a healthcare organization against set standards to improve safety and quality.
- Benefits of accreditation include improving public trust, establishing a safe work environment, and creating a culture of continuous learning.
- JCI is a US-based nonprofit that sets international standards for healthcare providers. Over 820 hospitals in 47 countries are JCI-accredited.
- The JCI accreditation process involves surveys to evaluate
Quality assurance programs overview in government hospitalUpendra Kushwah
The document discusses quality assurance in healthcare. It defines quality as meeting predetermined standards and customer expectations through minimizing variations and standardization. It outlines aims to ensure access to quality health services and satisfaction among users. Key aspects of quality include effectiveness, efficiency, equity, safety, timeliness and patient-centeredness. The document then provides details on quality assurance programs and assessments at the district, state and national level including formation of quality teams, indicators, audits, certifications and more. It discusses several specific quality programs like LaQshya for maternal and child health, SUMAN for maternal healthcare and Kayakalp for cleanliness in public health facilities.
The document discusses the evolution of quality management in healthcare. It describes the contributions of Walter Shewhart, William Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and Philip Crosby to developing concepts of quality management. It defines key terms like quality, outlines the three aspects of quality care, and lists important dimensions of quality like appropriateness, availability, and safety. Finally, it introduces the concept of value as quality of care divided by cost.
The document summarizes the organization and importance of medical records in a hospital setting. It discusses the components and flow of medical records, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the medical records department. Key points include that the medical record documents patient care for clinical, legal, and administrative purposes. It outlines the various sections that make up a medical record and how the records move from registration to the central filing unit.
The document defines key performance indicators (KPIs) as quantifiable measures that help companies gauge their performance against strategic goals. KPIs vary by industry but generally measure aspects like sales, costs, and quality. The document outlines objectives for KPIs like improving understanding and awareness of performance. It also discusses characteristics of good KPIs like being specific, measurable, and time-bound. Finally, the document provides examples of common KPIs for industries like shipping/logistics and infrastructure development.
Riverview Community Hospital is assessing its financial performance against competitors in its area. The assistant was tasked with analyzing Riverview's financial statements from 2005-2009. While total revenues increased each year despite new competition, Riverview's profit margins and asset management ratios declined slightly. Strengths included above average current and total margins, but weaknesses included below average debt management. The assistant recommends Riverview increase local marketing, lower outpatient costs, and expand inpatient and outpatient services to improve its financial condition against competitors.
This document discusses key performance indicators (KPIs) for healthcare. It provides information on developing KPIs, including defining objectives, identifying key result areas and tasks, and determining methods to measure results. The document discusses common types of KPIs such as process, input, output, leading, and lagging KPIs. It also discusses qualitative and quantitative KPIs. Mistakes to avoid when developing KPIs include creating too many and not linking them to strategy. KPIs should be designed to empower employees and answer important questions.
This document discusses key performance indicators (KPIs) for hospital managers. It provides information on developing KPIs for hospital managers, including identifying their key result areas and tasks, measuring performance, and common types of KPIs. The document recommends visiting kpi123.com for additional hospital manager KPI samples and materials on performance appraisal forms, methods, and review phrases.
Developing Metrics and KPI (Key Performance IndicatorsVictor Holman
Get a FREE performance management kit and access to all of Victor's full videos at:
www.lifecycle-performance-pros.com
This presentation covers the basics of developing successful performance metrics, from developing winning KPIs, learning how to develop the right metrics, the rules of developing KPIs and metrics and common performance metrics for managing a successful organization.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) should be used to understand performance and drive better decision-making. However, most companies struggle to find the vital few KPIs. Here is a list of the 25 top KPIs is use today.
The document provides a template for an HR manager's key performance indicator (KPI) table. It includes instructions on defining key result areas, selecting KPIs, assigning weights and targets for each KPI, tracking actual results, calculating scores, and using the final score to determine bonuses, salary increases, and promotions. The template and additional HR tools can be downloaded from www.exploreHR.org.
Standards for improving the quality of care for children and young adolescent...Trinity Care Foundation
These standards for the quality of paediatric care in health facilities form part of normative guidance for improving the quality of maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health care.
The goal of this publication is to ensure that the care given to all children, including young adolescents, in health facilities is evidence-based, safe, effective, timely, efficient, equitable and appropriate for their age and stage of development. The standards were developed in the best interests of children, in recognition of the fact that their requirements are different from those of adults and to ensure their right to high-quality health care. The standards are applicable to all facilities that provide health care to children and adolescents.
This document provides guidance for good practice in occupational health services. It aims to help occupational health professionals improve the quality of their work and better contribute to occupational health objectives. The document discusses topics like the objectives and tasks of occupational health services, workplace surveillance, health surveillance, counseling, and rehabilitation. It also covers managing occupational health services, including planning, ethics, training, competencies, financing, and quality management. The document is intended to help occupational health professionals evaluate their own performance and continuously improve. The overall goal is to enhance workplace health through high quality occupational health services.
This document provides an introduction and overview of a manual for developing medical record systems. It aims to help medical record workers develop and manage effective and efficient medical record departments. Key points covered include the objectives of medical record management, national and international support for the field, common terminology and name changes over time, and an overview of what will be covered in the manual such as the medical record, medical record department functions, basic procedures, and quality and legal issues. The introduction emphasizes the importance of having complete and accurate medical records available for patient care.
This document provides a style guide for presenting clinical outcomes data in a clear and understandable way for patients and the public. It outlines mandatory requirements such as including plain English explanations and involving patients in the design process. It also provides general guidance on making graphs and charts accessible, including using simple and familiar designs, clear labeling, and explaining any technical terms. Examples of recommended chart types are given such as pie charts, bar charts, and funnel plots. The goal is to present medical data in a way that is easy to understand and helps patients make informed healthcare choices.
'Orientaciones estratégicas mundiales para la Enfermería y la partería 2021-2...Richard Canabate
This document from the World Health Organization outlines global strategic directions for nursing and midwifery from 2021-2025. It identifies four key policy areas: education, jobs, leadership, and service delivery. For each area, it establishes a strategic direction and priority policies to achieve the goal of ensuring nurses and midwives can optimally contribute to universal health coverage and other health objectives. The intended impact is to fully enable nurses and midwives to support primary health care, pandemic response, climate change mitigation, migration management, and access to care in rural/remote areas.
This document provides a framework to help standardize suicide prevention practices across health authorities in British Columbia. It outlines best practices for assessment, treatment, monitoring and continuity of care for individuals at risk of suicide. The framework is intended to help health authorities develop protocols to meet new accreditation standards requiring regular suicide risk assessment, treatment and monitoring. It provides background information, templates and tools to guide the development and implementation of standardized, evidence-based protocols.
2010 OCDE Achieving Efficiency Improvements in the Health Sector through the ...Madrid Network
The document discusses how information and communication technologies (ICTs) can help drive improvements in healthcare quality and efficiency by enabling better care coordination, safer care through access to patient information and clinical guidelines, and more efficient chronic disease management. However, implementing ICTs in healthcare has proven difficult, with significant costs, delays, and failures experienced across OECD countries. The report analyzes case studies from several countries to identify conditions under which ICTs are most likely to achieve efficiency and quality gains in healthcare.
The document discusses how information and communication technologies (ICTs) can help drive improvements in healthcare quality and efficiency by enabling better care coordination, safer care through access to patient information and clinical guidelines, and more efficient chronic disease management. However, implementing ICTs in healthcare has proven difficult, with significant costs, delays, and failures experienced across countries. The report analyzes case studies from several OECD countries to identify conditions under which ICTs are most likely to achieve efficiency and quality gains in healthcare.
2010 OCDE Achieving Efficiency Improvements in the Health Sector through the ...guest4c3ea7
The document discusses how information and communication technologies (ICTs) can help drive improvements in healthcare quality and efficiency by enabling better care coordination, safer care through access to patient information and clinical guidelines, and more efficient chronic disease management. However, implementing ICTs in healthcare has proven difficult, with significant costs, delays, and failures experienced across countries. The report analyzes case studies from several OECD countries to identify conditions under which ICTs are most likely to achieve efficiency and quality gains in healthcare.
Monitoring and evaluation toolkit - Conférence de la 2e édition du Cours international « Atelier Paludisme » - TUSEO Luciano - World Health Organization / Roll Back Malaria - maloms@iris.mg
This document is a training module from the World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa on health sector reform and district health systems. It contains two units that provide information on health policy, strategies and reform as well as the definitions, structures, and assessment of district health systems. The module is intended to build the capacity of district health management teams through addressing issues identified in assessments of district health systems.
This document provides guidelines for researching and evaluating herbal medicines used in traditional medicine. It defines key terms related to herbal medicines and outlines approaches for assessing quality, safety, and efficacy. Specifically, it recommends verifying the botanical identity of herbal materials and standardizing herbal preparations to contain defined amounts of active ingredients when possible. It also provides guidance on acute and long-term toxicity testing to evaluate safety. The guidelines aim to improve research while respecting the history of established herbal medicine practices.
WHO Guideline on Quality Risk Management PostgradoMLCC
This document outlines a proposed guideline on quality risk management from the World Health Organization. It discusses applying risk management principles to both medicines regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical manufacturers. The goal is to help focus resources on risks to patients, encourage science-based decision making, and improve communication between organizations. The draft guideline is being circulated for comment before finalization.
This document presents evidence on maternal nutrition and its impact on obesity and noncommunicable diseases. It provides an overview of national recommendations for nutrition, physical activity, and weight gain during pregnancy in WHO European countries. The key findings are:
- Many countries have recommendations for maternal nutrition, physical activity, and weight gain, but capacity and implementation vary.
- National guidelines focus on nutrient and calorie needs during pregnancy but could be strengthened for at-risk groups.
- Most countries have recommendations for newborn and child nutrition, but supportive policies like paid parental leave vary significantly.
- Opportunities for improving guidelines, healthcare professional training, surveillance, and support for maternal and child health were identified.
This document reports on a global survey of telemedicine conducted by the World Health Organization in 2009. It finds that telemedicine is being used around the world to support maternal and newborn health in developing countries like Mongolia. However, barriers like inadequate infrastructure and legal issues need to be addressed for telemedicine to reach its full potential. The literature review revealed opportunities for telemedicine to improve healthcare in rural areas, but also challenges in implementation and sustainability. Overall, telemedicine shows promise for expanding access to services, but developing countries must address barriers to realize its benefits.
The report provides an overview of telemedicine, which uses information and communication technologies to deliver health care services over distance. Telemedicine aims to increase access to care, especially for rural communities. While telemedicine originated in the late 19th century, recent advances in technologies have accelerated its development. The report discusses opportunities for developing countries and barriers to realizing telemedicine's potential. It also reviews literature on telemedicine applications and lessons learned.
Contoh Protokol Validasi Metode Analisis Mikrobiologi #3Guide_Consulting
Validation of Analytical Methods for the Detection of Microbial pathogens in Foods
Untuk mendapat file nya silahkan kirimkan email beserta data (nama, perusahaan, alamat email, no telp) ke Guide Consulting | info@traininglaboratorium.com
The document provides guidance for establishing a quality improvement committee at Rumbek State Hospital in South Sudan. It outlines 7 steps for the committee: 1) Identifying problems and areas for improvement through methods like chart reviews and observations. 2) Setting clear and measurable improvement aims. 3) Selecting quality indicators to measure progress. 4) Developing changes to address root causes of problems. 5) Identifying solutions and strategies. 6) Reviewing progress using tracking tables. 7) Evaluating the process and outcomes through tools like client satisfaction surveys and health facility assessments. The committee will aim to continuously improve quality of clinical services at the hospital.
The document provides guidelines for assessing the operationality of district health systems in Africa. It outlines the following:
1. The assessment aims to identify strengths and weaknesses in district health system structures, processes, activities, community participation and resource management.
2. The process involves adapting assessment tools to the country context, collecting data from health facilities using a facility questionnaire, analyzing the data to inform district health planning, and strengthening the district health management team.
3. The results should be used at central and district levels to guide health sector reforms, resource allocation and improvements in district health system performance.
Similar to Selection Of Indicators For Hospital Performance Mesurement (20)
UU no 17 tahunn 2014 tentang MPR DPR DPD dan DPRD (MD3)Suprijanto Rijadi
Undang-undang ini mengatur tentang Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (MPR), Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR), Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD), dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (DPRD). MPR merupakan lembaga permusyawaratan tertinggi yang memiliki wewenang untuk mengubah UUD, memilih presiden dan wakil presiden, serta mengawasi pelaksanaan UUD. Undang-undang ini juga mengatur tentang
Puskesmas - Pusat Kesehatan Masyarakat atau Pusat Kesehatan Perorangan?Suprijanto Rijadi
Dokumen tersebut membahas tentang:
1. Sejarah dan perkembangan puskesmas di Indonesia sejak tahun 1968 hingga 2014
2. Fungsi dan peran puskesmas sebagai fasilitas kesehatan primer dan pusat pemberdayaan masyarakat
3. Tantangan yang dihadapi puskesmas seiring dengan diberlakukannya Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional pada 2014
Undang-undang ini membahas tentang pengaturan tenaga kesehatan di Indonesia, mencakup kualifikasi, pengelompokan, perencanaan, pengadaan, dan pendayagunaan tenaga kesehatan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan masyarakat dan menjamin mutu pelayanan kesehatan.
Naskah Penjelasan UU Keperawatan Final September 2014Suprijanto Rijadi
Undang-undang ini mengatur tentang keperawatan untuk memberikan kerangka hukum dan perlindungan bagi perawat dan pasien dalam pelayanan keperawatan. Undang-undang ini mengatur tentang jenis perawat, pendidikan tinggi keperawatan, registrasi dan izin praktik, praktik keperawatan, hak dan kewajiban perawat dan pasien, serta organisasi terkait keperawatan. Tujuannya adalah meningkatkan mutu dan tanggung jawab pelayanan keper
Naskah UU Keperawatan Final Akan disahkan Oktober 2014Suprijanto Rijadi
Rangkaian undang-undang ini membahas tentang pengaturan keperawatan di Indonesia, termasuk jenis perawat, pendidikan keperawatan, registrasi dan izin praktik perawat, serta ketentuan untuk perawat asing dan lulusan luar negeri. Tujuannya adalah meningkatkan mutu pelayanan kesehatan dan perlindungan bagi perawat serta pasien.
Tantangan Kesehatan Kabinet Jokowi 02 - KIS adalah BPJS yang Dipercepat 5 Tahun?Suprijanto Rijadi
Dokumen tersebut membahas perbandingan program Kartu Indonesia Sehat (KIS) yang diusung Jokowi dengan program Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN) melalui Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial (BPJS) Kesehatan. KIS dianggap hanya akan mempercepat pelaksanaan BPJS lima tahun ke depan tanpa memperhatikan ketersediaan anggaran dan fasilitas kesehatan. Dokumen ini menganjurkan pemerintah lebih fokus p
Tantangan Kesehatan Kabinet Jokowi 01 - Paradigma Sakit Sebagai Dasar Pembang...Suprijanto Rijadi
Dokumen tersebut membahas tentang paradigma kesehatan di Indonesia yang saat ini masih berfokus pada pengobatan (paradigma sakit), bukan pada promosi kesehatan dan pencegahan penyakit (paradigma sehat). Alokasi anggaran kesehatan pemerintah juga masih didominasi untuk layanan kesehatan perorangan (82%) dan rumah sakit (50%), bukan untuk program kesehatan masyarakat (hanya 8-10%). Dokumen ini menganalisis bah
Draft Final Sistem kesehatan Daerah Kabupaten WonosoboSuprijanto Rijadi
http://www.sistemkesehatandaerah.com
Hasil akhir diskusi selama 2 bulan dalam perumusan Siskesda Wonosobo tergambarkan dari draft Final Siskesda Kab Wonosobo ini.
Secara ringkas diuraikan komponen2 utama dari Siskesda Kab Wonosobo
Membangun Siskesda Wonosobo part 3 - Merumuskan Upaya KesehatanSuprijanto Rijadi
Dokumen tersebut membahas tentang penentuan jenis upaya kesehatan yang sesuai dengan kondisi dan situasi di Kabupaten Wonosobo. Beberapa hal yang perlu dipertimbangkan antara lain pelayanan kesehatan yang ada saat ini beserta permasalahannya, pola pengembangan daerah lima tahun ke depan, serta sumber daya yang dibutuhkan seperti fasilitas, SDM, alat kesehatan, dan dana untuk menjalankan kegiatan tersebut
PP 74 tahun 2012 Perubahan PP 23/2005 tentang Pengelolaan Badan layanan UmumSuprijanto Rijadi
PP 74 tahun 2012 merubah beberapa pola keuangan yang diatur pada PP 23 tahun 2005, sehingga pengelolaan keuangan bisa menjadi lebih fleksibel bagi Unit Pelaksana BLU
PP 23 tahun 2005 tentang Pengelolaan Keuangan Badan layanan Umum ini merubah pola keuangan lembaga pemerintahan seperti rumah sakit, Universitas sehingga mereka boleh memakai langsung penghasilan operasionalnya. Dan juga PP ini mendorong transformasi lembaga kantor agar bertindak selaku "business entity" walaupun tidak berorientasi pada keuntungan semata
Uu 40 thn 2004 Sistem Jaminan Sosial Nasional (SJSN)Suprijanto Rijadi
Dalam Undang Undang 40/2004 tentang SJSN ini dibahas sistem jaminan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia, baik jaminan kesehatan, jaminan sosial tenaga kerja.
Promoting Wellbeing - Applied Social Psychology - Psychology SuperNotesPsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kol...rightmanforbloodline
TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Versio
TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Version
TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Version
Cell Therapy Expansion and Challenges in Autoimmune DiseaseHealth Advances
There is increasing confidence that cell therapies will soon play a role in the treatment of autoimmune disorders, but the extent of this impact remains to be seen. Early readouts on autologous CAR-Ts in lupus are encouraging, but manufacturing and cost limitations are likely to restrict access to highly refractory patients. Allogeneic CAR-Ts have the potential to broaden access to earlier lines of treatment due to their inherent cost benefits, however they will need to demonstrate comparable or improved efficacy to established modalities.
In addition to infrastructure and capacity constraints, CAR-Ts face a very different risk-benefit dynamic in autoimmune compared to oncology, highlighting the need for tolerable therapies with low adverse event risk. CAR-NK and Treg-based therapies are also being developed in certain autoimmune disorders and may demonstrate favorable safety profiles. Several novel non-cell therapies such as bispecific antibodies, nanobodies, and RNAi drugs, may also offer future alternative competitive solutions with variable value propositions.
Widespread adoption of cell therapies will not only require strong efficacy and safety data, but also adapted pricing and access strategies. At oncology-based price points, CAR-Ts are unlikely to achieve broad market access in autoimmune disorders, with eligible patient populations that are potentially orders of magnitude greater than the number of currently addressable cancer patients. Developers have made strides towards reducing cell therapy COGS while improving manufacturing efficiency, but payors will inevitably restrict access until more sustainable pricing is achieved.
Despite these headwinds, industry leaders and investors remain confident that cell therapies are poised to address significant unmet need in patients suffering from autoimmune disorders. However, the extent of this impact on the treatment landscape remains to be seen, as the industry rapidly approaches an inflection point.
Rasamanikya is a excellent preparation in the field of Rasashastra, it is used in various Kushtha Roga, Shwasa, Vicharchika, Bhagandara, Vatarakta, and Phiranga Roga. In this article Preparation& Comparative analytical profile for both Formulationon i.e Rasamanikya prepared by Kushmanda swarasa & Churnodhaka Shodita Haratala. The study aims to provide insights into the comparative efficacy and analytical aspects of these formulations for enhanced therapeutic outcomes.
Does Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptxwalterHu5
In some case, your chronic prostatitis may be related to over-masturbation. Generally, natural medicine Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill can help mee get a cure.
These lecture slides, by Dr Sidra Arshad, offer a quick overview of the physiological basis of a normal electrocardiogram.
Learning objectives:
1. Define an electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrocardiography
2. Describe how dipoles generated by the heart produce the waveforms of the ECG
3. Describe the components of a normal electrocardiogram of a typical bipolar lead (limb II)
4. Differentiate between intervals and segments
5. Enlist some common indications for obtaining an ECG
6. Describe the flow of current around the heart during the cardiac cycle
7. Discuss the placement and polarity of the leads of electrocardiograph
8. Describe the normal electrocardiograms recorded from the limb leads and explain the physiological basis of the different records that are obtained
9. Define mean electrical vector (axis) of the heart and give the normal range
10. Define the mean QRS vector
11. Describe the axes of leads (hexagonal reference system)
12. Comprehend the vectorial analysis of the normal ECG
13. Determine the mean electrical axis of the ventricular QRS and appreciate the mean axis deviation
14. Explain the concepts of current of injury, J point, and their significance
Study Resources:
1. Chapter 11, Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, 14th edition
2. Chapter 9, Human Physiology - From Cells to Systems, Lauralee Sherwood, 9th edition
3. Chapter 29, Ganong’s Review of Medical Physiology, 26th edition
4. Electrocardiogram, StatPearls - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549803/
5. ECG in Medical Practice by ABM Abdullah, 4th edition
6. Chapter 3, Cardiology Explained, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2214/
7. ECG Basics, http://www.nataliescasebook.com/tag/e-c-g-basics
Local Advanced Lung Cancer: Artificial Intelligence, Synergetics, Complex Sys...Oleg Kshivets
Overall life span (LS) was 1671.7±1721.6 days and cumulative 5YS reached 62.4%, 10 years – 50.4%, 20 years – 44.6%. 94 LCP lived more than 5 years without cancer (LS=2958.6±1723.6 days), 22 – more than 10 years (LS=5571±1841.8 days). 67 LCP died because of LC (LS=471.9±344 days). AT significantly improved 5YS (68% vs. 53.7%) (P=0.028 by log-rank test). Cox modeling displayed that 5YS of LCP significantly depended on: N0-N12, T3-4, blood cell circuit, cell ratio factors (ratio between cancer cells-CC and blood cells subpopulations), LC cell dynamics, recalcification time, heparin tolerance, prothrombin index, protein, AT, procedure type (P=0.000-0.031). Neural networks, genetic algorithm selection and bootstrap simulation revealed relationships between 5YS and N0-12 (rank=1), thrombocytes/CC (rank=2), segmented neutrophils/CC (3), eosinophils/CC (4), erythrocytes/CC (5), healthy cells/CC (6), lymphocytes/CC (7), stick neutrophils/CC (8), leucocytes/CC (9), monocytes/CC (10). Correct prediction of 5YS was 100% by neural networks computing (error=0.000; area under ROC curve=1.0).
Selection Of Indicators For Hospital Performance Mesurement
1. Selection of indicators for
Hospital Performance
Measurement
A report on the 3rd and 4th
Workshop
Barcelona, Spain, June and September 2003
This report has been prepared by:
Jérémy Veillard, Technical Officer
Ann-Lise Guisset, Technical Officer
Mila Garcia-Barbero, Head of WHO Office for
Integrated Health Care Services, Division of
3. CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
1.1. RATIONALE ...........................................................................................................................1
1.2. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................1
1.3. OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................................2
1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT...................................................................................................2
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS................................................................................................2
2.1. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................................................2
2.2. SURVEY IN 11 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ...................................................................................3
2.3. PRE-SELECTION OF INDIVIDUAL INDICATORS .........................................................................4
3. RESULTS...................................................................................................................................4
3.1. SUB-DIMENSIONS OF THE OPERATIONAL AND CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF HOSPITAL
PERFORMANCE..............................................................................................................................4
3.1.1. It was agreed that prerequisites to the conceptual model were:...................................4
3.1.2. Conceptual and operational model ...............................................................................4
3.2. SELECTION OF INDICATORS ....................................................................................................7
3.2.2. Selection of indicators by dimension.......................................................................9
3.3 FEEDBACK OF RESULTS TO PARTICIPATING HOSPITALS ...................................................16
4. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................17
4.1. SUMMARY OF PRODUCTS ................................................................................................17
4.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ON DATA RELATED ISSUES .............................................................18
4.2.1. Collection and quality control of hospital data...........................................................18
4.2.2. Data aggregation ........................................................................................................18
4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PILOTING THE FRAMEWORK FOR
HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................18
4.3.1. Beneficiaries................................................................................................................18
4.3.2. Project management/leadership..................................................................................19
4.3.3. Selection of indicators at local /national level............................................................19
4.3.6. Training implications ..................................................................................................20
4.4. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR HOSPITAL
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................20
4.5. THE STEPS FORWARD ...........................................................................................................20
ANNEX 1 .....................................................................................................................................22
ANNEX 2 .....................................................................................................................................25
ANNEX 3 .....................................................................................................................................27
ANNEX 4 .....................................................................................................................................32
4.
5. EUR/03/5038066
page 1
1. Introduction
1.1. Rationale
The restructuring of health care services among several European countries aims at increasing
accountability, cost-effectiveness, sustainability and quality improvement strategies, and shows a
growing interest in patient satisfaction. These reforms highlight a major challenge throughout
Europe for efficient and high quality hospitals. They demand evidence-based policies and
management strategies for hospital performance assessment. In this context, The WHO Regional
Office for Europe provides a flexible and comprehensive framework called the Performance
Assessment Tool for quality improvement in Hospitals (PATH). It includes i.e.
Product 1. A conceptual model of performance (dimensions, sub-dimension and how they
relate to each other),
Product 2. Criteria for selection of indicators
Product 3. Lists of indicators (e.g. including, rationale, operational definition, data collection
issues, support for interpretation),
Product 4. An operational model of performance (how indicators relate to each other, and
also to explanatory variables and to standards),
Product 5. Strategies for feedback of results to hospitals, mainly through a “balanced
dashboard”,
Product 6. Strategies to foster benchmarking.
1.2. Background
This report is the summary of the two last workshops in a series of four dedicated to building a
framework for hospital performance assessment.
The two first workshops on hospital performance assessment led to an agreement on the
objectives of the project, definitions of the main concepts (performance, quality, indicators, etc.),
identification of six dimensions of performance (product 1) and criteria for indicators selection
(product 2). The conceptual model encompasses six dimensions: clinical effectiveness, safety,
patient centeredness, responsive governance, staff orientation and efficiency. The criteria for
indicator selection are there importance and relevance to European hospitals, reliability and
validity (of each individual indicator and of the set of indicators as a whole), and burden of data
collection.
A preliminary list of indicators was established, based on an extensive review of the literature of
the current national and/or regional performance assessment projects (almost 300 indicators were
reviewed). The indicators were tested against the selection criteria described above and a
shortlist of indicators was drawn.
6. EUR/03/5038066
page 2
The group decided to organize indicators into two “baskets”:
- a “core” basket gathering a limited number of indicators generally available, applicable
and valid; relying on the best scientific evidence, for which data are available in most
European countries and which are very responsive in different contexts; and
- a “tailored” basket gathering indicators proposed for use only in specific situations
because of variability of data availability, applicability to specific settings (e.g. teaching
hospitals, rural hospitals, etc.) or validity (cultural, financial, organisational contexts).
1.3. Objectives
Based on this previous work, the objectives of the third and fourth workshops were:
• To refine the operational model by clarifying sub-dimensions of performance,
• To select a core basket of indicators and propose a tailored list,
• To build an operational model of performance
• To discuss strategies for dissemination and follow-up of the framework and more
specifically its pilot implementation.
1.4. Structure of the report
In this report we first describe the steps, material and methods for achieving these objectives
(section 2: material and methods), the main products of both workshops (section 3: results) and
conclude with a discussion on the next steps of the project with a focus on the challenges and
opportunities for implementation (section 4: discussion).
2. Material and methods
2.1. Review of the literature
The first step taken was the identification of indicators for sub-dimensions of performance not
covered or partly covered by current hospital performance assessment systems under use. In this
way, the list of potential indicators pre-selected during the second workshop was enlarged to
cover the sub-dimensions added during the further conceptualization phase and included
indicators used in research projects and not widely used by hospitals.
Next, an extensive review of the grey and scientific literature was performed. Evidence for each
indicator on the rationale for use, prevalence, validity and reliability, current scope of use,
supposed and demonstrated relationship with other performance indicators, exogenous factors
and verification of standards was collected.
The review of the literature showed that some dimensions and indicators, such as clinical
effectiveness, have been well researched and built on a scientific tradition of evaluation. But
others, such as responsive governance and efficiency are not so well represented in the literature
and tend to be based primarily on empirical evidence or expert judgment.
7. EUR/03/5038066
page 3
A distinction between “reflective” and “formative” indicators was drawn. Formative indicators
(causal) determine changes in the value of the latent variable while reflective indicators (effect)
work the other way around. For instance, length of stay is a formative indicator of efficiency as
efficiency is partly determined by length of stay, but at the same time as clinical effectiveness
affects length of stay and hence length of stay is also a reflective indicator of clinical
effectiveness. This distinction is important from a methodological point of view to evaluate
indicators validity. During implementation phase it will support the interpretation of indicators
results.
2.2. Survey in 11 European countries
A survey was conducted in 11 European countries in May 2003. It aimed to define the hospital
management’s scope for decision-making, the relevance of various indicators and the burden of
data collection. Questions were circulated to volunteer members of the Health Promoting
Hospitals network and to countries participating in the pilot project.
Twelve responses came from the 11 countries. One questionnaire was sent to each one of the
countries. Surveys were filled in either by individuals or by large multi-professional working
groups. Each working group was asked to fill in the survey for a so-called “lay hospital” in the
country.
Survey results have to be interpreted with great caution. Inference is limited because of a sample
bias. Recipients of the questionnaire were identified from a self-selected group (Health
Promoting Hospital network). There may also be a “social desirability” bias. It means that
respondents answer the way they believe they are expected to answer and overrate the
importance of socially desirable components of performance (e.g. health promotion, staff
satisfaction). The survey only captured limited information on the content and quality of national
data sets. Moreover, two questionnaires from one country showed intra-country discrepancies.
Although these factors limit the interpretation of the survey, they do not render it unhelpful. The
empirical findings of the survey were considered crucial to reconcile theory with practice and to
develop a strategy to monitor the integrity of the model and its application to different health
care systems. To evaluate applicability was extremely important because indicators were drawn
from a mainly Anglo-Saxon literature and applicability of tools and extrapolation to other
contexts is often questionable. The purpose of the survey to facilitate the selection of indicators
with a first input from the countries was met. This purpose will be completed in the next steps
with the input from countries that will pilot the balanced dashboard of performance indicators.
Responses to the survey showed wide variations in data availability and data quality, including:
• continuing use of ICD-9 instead of ICD-10,
• relative or absolute lack of secondary diagnosis coding,
• over/under recording reflecting funding and culture,
• delineation of episodes, readmissions, attribution to hospitals, and
• variable, usually limited, linkage between hospitals and primary health care
In general, respondents supported the values and the measures proposed in the survey. Many of
the issues, such as staff orientation, were considered to be very important, although few countries
actually have systems to measure it.
8. EUR/03/5038066
page 4
2.3. Pre-selection of individual indicators
The pre-selection was based on evidence in the literature, results of the survey in participating
countries and expert judgement. Discussions took place at the third and fourth workshops.
During the third workshop, four working groups composed of international experts (see
appendix) in the different dimensions selected (clinical effectiveness and patient safety, staff
orientation and staff safety, efficiency and patient centeredness, responsive governance and
environmental safety) were asked to select indicators using a modified nominal group technique.
They first scored them individually on a scale from 1 to 10 according to importance, validity and
burden of data collection. Individual scores were reported to the group and discussed. Then
indicators were allocated to a “core” or “tailored” baskets or excluded from the framework.
During the fourth workshop, the list of indicators was reviewed to guarantee the content validity
of the set of indicators as a whole.
3. Results
3.1. Sub-dimensions of the operational and conceptual models of
hospital performance
3.1.1. It was agreed that prerequisites to the conceptual model were:
- to be consistent with WHO policy and language;
- to share a common understanding of seemingly very similar concepts e.g.
dimensions/perspectives; indicators / standards /criteria; outputs / results / performance
whose complexity is increased by its translation from English to other languages;
- to clearly define concepts included under each sub-dimension e.g. emotional support,
empowerment and autonomy;
- a glossary of terms for the purpose of the project will be useful and
- the need to design indicators around practical customers (hospitals).
3.1.2. Conceptual and operational model
The conceptual model encompasses four vertical dimensions (clinical effectiveness, efficiency,
staff orientation and responsive governance) that cut across two horizontal perspectives (patient
centeredness and safety) (see figure 1). Sub-dimensions for each of the six
dimensions/perspectives are described in table 1.
9. EUR/03/5038066
page 5
Figure 1: The WHO Regional Office for Europe theoretical Model for Hospital Performance
Error!
Staff orientation
Reponsive governance
Clinical effectiveness
Efficiency
Safety
Patient centeredness
Table 1: Description of the dimensions and sub-dimensions of performance
Dimension Sub-dimensions
Clinical effectiveness - Conformity of processes of care
- Outcomes of processes of care
- Appropriateness of care
Efficiency - Appropriateness (added after discussions during the workshop)
- Input related to outputs of care
- Use of available technology for best possible care
Staff orientation - Practice environment
- Perspectives and recognition of individual needs
- Health promotion activities and safety initiatives
- Behavioural responses and health status
Responsive governance - System / Community integration
- Public health orientation
Safety - Patient safety
- Staff safety
- Environment safety
Patient centeredness - Client orientation
- Respect for patients
It was made clear that several issues deserve special consideration:
1 Highlight the central role of both patient centeredness and safety values in guiding
health systems and hospitals management: a patient’s perspective on clinical
effectiveness, efficiency, staff orientation, responsive governance
2 Make explicit the relationships between indicators. The difference between determinants
and measures of performance is helpful in constructing and balancing the indicator set, as
many measures e.g. length of stay may be seen as associated with a range of variables
which may be characterised as formative drivers or reflective images.
10. EUR/03/5038066
page 6
3 The distinction between formative and reflective indicators was crucial. However, it may
be difficult to understand and might cause confusion to potential users of the indicators.
For the educational material, terms such as “the indicator reflects…” and the “indicator
acts upon…” will be preferred.
The overall structure for each dimension and the main points described are presented below.
a. Clinical effectiveness
Within clinical effectiveness, a focus on team working and on clinical conditions, rather than on
individual specialties or professions, was recommended.
Although it was acknowledges that several indicators have major limits, nevertheless they should
be considered to guarantee content validity of the set of indicators as a whole.
Some of the main problems are that:
- complications and sentinel events are seriously underreported,
- indicators based on data extracted from the medical record, e.g. on appropriate and timely
care, depend on content which is commonly not recorded, and represent a very high burden
of data collection.
b. Efficiency
There are practical limitations of linking inputs to health care outputs or outcomes due to:
• lack of activity based costing;
• inconsistency of case-mix classification and
• difficulty in standardising costs in monetary terms between countries
Despite these limitations, opportunities for measuring efficiency include optimal use of available
technology (e.g. machine time), utilisation rates, staffing ratios, and financial management.
Following the discussion, appropriateness of health services utilization was added as a sub-
dimension. Efficiency without appropriateness is considered a meaningless dimension. Given the
wide variations in the availability, training and functions of personnel and even within countries,
indicators based on staffing ratios would be difficult to interpret. Moreover, they are largely
outside the hospital’s control. Hence, they are not treated as performance indicators but as
background information, as an important measure to understand and interpret other performance
indicators.
In market economies hospitals manage finances. In other contexts, hospitals only manage or
even administer line-budgets. Because of those wide disparities in financial responsibilities,
indicators on financial performance and profitability are only in the tailored set.
c. Staff orientation
Many potential indicators are sensitive to context. In this area there are wide variations between
countries and priorities vary widely. In some countries the preoccupation is overstaffing, job
security and timely payment while in others, overworking, turnover and vacancy rate,
professional identity, self-regulation, team working and a main reliance on nurses (who are
usually in short supply) are overreaching challenges.
11. EUR/03/5038066
page 7
These conditions largely affect indicators on staff orientation. Staffing levels, team working and
continuity of care bear also on patient safety and clinical effectiveness.
Staff orientation should recognize knowledge management and its application i.e. competence
and practical skills.
d. Responsive governance
Responsive governance relates to the hospital role, responsibilities and influence within the
health care systems. It is also very sensitive to context and culture. There is also a general lack of
literature on responsive governance indicators.
Attention should focus on:
- continuity of care, focusing on patient perception (patients surveys) or factual
issues (discharge letters)
- patient discharge planning (over which hospital has control) and
- responsiveness to the health needs of the community served.
e. Patient centeredness
Patient centeredness is usually assessed through patients’ surveys. There are three broad
approaches to patient surveys. They measure patient experience with care received, patient
satisfaction or the gap between patient’s expectations and perceived experience. The three
surveys are complementary and one approach is not advocated over the other. What is really
important is that hospitals listen to the patients, use the results from the survey to improve
services and do it in a standardized way to allow comparisons between all major sub-dimensions.
But it is unrealistic to have a same standardized questionnaire for all hospitals in Europe.
f. Safety
This transversal dimension is divided into patient, staff and environmental safety. It should link
clusters of ideas such as:
- patient centeredness and continuity of care and
- staff orientation and patient safety: training / adequacy.
Sub-dimensions of patient safety include issues such as quality monitoring, development and use
of standardized guidelines, drug prescribing and delivery organization, infection control
mechanisms, continuity of care, professional qualifications and job content.
3.2. Selection of indicators
The selection of indicators was a very complicated process because of the different
understanding, systems and purposes. Methodological discussions reflected below facilitated the
clarification of different issues and facilitated the selection of indicators.
- Indicators or standards?
Discussion centred on the definition of an indicator in relation to criteria, standards and norms.
On the one hand, some members of the group considered that indicators have to be quantified,
continuous variables and related to a denominator. On the other hand, the Ontario definitions
include qualitative 0/1 variables, which may present a confusing message to many European
12. EUR/03/5038066
page 8
countries. It was concluded that assessment of structural characteristics might be more
appropriate questions for periodic surveys rather than for continuous measurement purposes.
It was decided that ultimately the selection of indicators should be based on functionality rather
than academic classifications. This would allow the inclusion of rate/ratio measures, supported
by dichotomous questions, which may relate to internal or external organisational assessment.
The final set of indicators does not include self-assessment against standards because of
contextual validity (standards who proved useful in a setting may not be applicable to all other
settings) and burden of tool development.
- Evidence and usefulness
Evidence of validity may be relatively weak for some measures. For example, the indicator
“return to ICU” is widely adopted by hospitals but there is very little hard evidence that this is a
construct valid measure. Indicators such as waiting times and caesarean sections rates may be
affected by local values, practices and norms. There is no robust evidence that they inform about
the quality of clinical practice. Furthermore, even if evidence exists it may not be useful in one
country but very useful in others. For instance, the implications of “overtime” in the employment
environment of the USA may not be directly transferable to Europe. Similarly, turnover is only
an indicator of staff satisfaction and morale in context where nurses have the opportunity to
move job and unemployment rates are very low.
However, it was agreed that, despite this, some indicators might be valuable for individual
hospitals to use as comparative measures between hospitals even if there is no agreement on best
practices for clinical decision-making. When no or little evidence is available to support the
indicator but that the indicator is considered useful and is used by many hospitals or included in
many systems, it has strong face validity.
It was agreed that, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, it is acceptable to recommend
measures that are based on usefulness rather than hard scientific evidence. Indicators included in
the core set have been selected on the basis of best available evidence and relevance to the
European hospitals context.
- Content validity of the set as a whole
Indicators lists aim to support a balanced and realistic view of hospital performance, progressing
from a comprehensive list of known measures to a structured core set which is appropriate in
most acute general hospital, and a supplementary “tailored” set for more specific situations or
where data were available.
Whether the balance is correct or not depends on the agreed aims and use of the indicator set.
The core set is more outcomes focused, the tailored set more process focused, and structure is
amenable to simple descriptive measures. But many outcomes e.g. staff satisfaction may also be
seen as structural inputs to the care process. A good overall mix of input (or structure) / output
(or process) / outcomes measures seems the best strategy for having an impact on quality
improvement.
- Challenges with data collection and operational definitions
Ultimately the reliability of hospital performance indicators rests upon the quality of data from a
variety of sources, such as:
13. EUR/03/5038066
page 9
• Clinical and administrative database: need linkage, standardized definitions, coding
procedures, clinical validation
• Self assessment surveys: much used in Ontario but liable to inconsistent application and
thus results
• Patient surveys
• Staff surveys
• Abstraction of medical records: e.g. occurrence screening, retrospective clinical audit
A conclusion was that indicators (e.g. complications) should not be excluded merely because
they require regularly missing or inaccurate data. On the contrary, they should be used as an
opportunity to identify and respond to a need for education and improvement leading to more
effective information systems. Similarly, indicators based on data abstracted manually from
records should not be excluded; the exercise is educational for staff and improves the quality of
the clinical records.
If indicators are to be used for international comparisons, operational definitions (and the
underlying data) need to be standardised rather than left for local determination within national
contexts. Although standardisation between countries should be aimed at, its achievement will be
gradual. A commitment to start working for convergence is preferred to the unrealistic aim to
seek immediate conformity. International comparisons are a secondary objective, aimed for at a
later stage of the project.
3.2.2. Selection of indicators by dimension
In this section, indicators are presented crossing vertical dimensions and horizontal perspectives.
Clinical effectiveness and patient safety
Initially 25 indicators were selected: 11 indicators for the core basket and 14 for the tailored
basket (see both baskets on table 2). Indicators which use return home as an endpoint, and which
describe merely volume of care were excluded.
The following indicators were selected:
- Sentinel events especially related to surgery
- Mortality in hospital (core) and out of hospital (advanced), disease specific at 30 days
e.g. neonatal, Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), hip fracture, Acute Myocardial
Infarction (AMI).
- Readmission within 28 days to same hospital (core) or other hospital (tailored) for asthma
and diabetes, separated for children and adults
- Return to ICU within 48 hours, admission after day surgery
- Appropriate use of services: core set caesarean section and prophylactic antibiotic use (by
audit of indications rather than overall rate). An advanced level questionnaire could be
used to assess availability and application of hospital policies and clinical guidelines.
Table 2: Final list of indicators for clinical effectiveness and patient safety
Dimension / Sub-dimension Core Tailored Interpretative
information
Appropriateness of care Caesarean section rate Result of audit of indications for Caesarean section rate in
Caesarean section area
Conformity of processes of care Result of audit of medical records for Door to needle time
14. EUR/03/5038066
page 10
prophylactic antibiotic use Percent of patients with CT scan (3
hours) after stroke
Percent of AMI patient discharged
on aspirin
Outcomes of care and safety processes Mortality rates for selected tracers Ditto CORE, with more advanced
Readmission rates for selected tracers risk-adjustment procedures and
Rate of admission after day surgery follow-up of patients (e.g. different
Rate of return to ICU for selected hospitals for readmission and fixed
tracer conditions follow-up for mortality)
Prevalence of sentinel events Post-tonsillectomy bleeding Reporting procedures for
Rate of pressure ulcers for stroke sentinel events, surveillance
and fracture patients systems
Rate of nosocomial infections
Rate of third degree perineal tear
Rate of ureteric/bladder damage
associated with hysterectomy
The tailored basket includes many of the core indicators, but refined by record linkage and
adding other specific conditions, for instance readmission within 28 days after surgery, door to
needle time, computer assisted tomography scan within 3 hours stroke, acute myocardial
infarction patients discharged on aspirin, post-tonsillectomy bleeding, pressure ulcers on
neurology (stroke) and orthopaedic wards (hip fracture), hospital-acquired infection (central
veinous percutaneous lines, artificial ventilation, total hip replacement), third degree perineal
tear, ureteric/bladder damage associated with hysterectomy, diabetes control (see COMAC
guidelines).
Technical problems arise with tracers due to diagnostic variability, low prevalence rate and small
samples. As a result of a focus on clinical groups many small hospitals with statistically small
samples may be excluded. Due to this limitation, further work on selection of tracer conditions
needs to be done.
To support the interpretation of indicators, a preliminary questionnaire on safety structures and
standards might include: guidelines development, committees, existence of an emergency trauma
register, triage system, blood transfusion-related safety procedure (standard ordering list,
haemovigilance), autopsies, technical maintenance e.g. lasers.
Other questions and comments need to be taken into consideration:
- Sentinel events: are the American Medical Association (AMA) list and definitions of
incidents transferable to Europe? Should reporting mechanisms be standardised in order
to make any results comparable? Does the prevailing culture promote “zero reporting”
and the denial of adverse events? Sentinel events should be used as reflections of safety –
by their analysis rather than their measurement.
- Appropriateness and conformity: these should be combined as “process of care”,
assuming the availability of evidence-based or locally defined guidelines to define what
is appropriate.
- Staff overtime: this is an invalidated determinant of safety but is an important issue to
many hospitals. It may be better focused on nursing care (where evidence is clearer than
medical) as a measure of staff welfare rather than patient safety.
15. EUR/03/5038066
page 11
Efficiency
Efficiency needs to be linked to complexity as can be measured by DRG if data is available. It
should also include waste of resources e.g. blood, operating rooms, CT scanning, clinical time,
X-ray film, and food.
The use of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) was discussed and was postponed
because its usefulness in the European context was still unclear. A further analysis still needs to
be done before AEP can be recommended in a wider context than the one it was designed for.
The final selection of efficiency indicators is presented in table 3.
Table 3: Final list of indicators for efficiency
Dimension / Sub-dimension Core Tailored Interpretative
information
Appropriateness of services - Ambulatory surgery rate (extension: - Result of audit of
medical acute care) for selected Appropriateness Evaluation
tracers Protocol (AEP – European
version)
Productivity (input related to output) - Median length of stay for selected - LOS case-mix adjusted Staff ratios (per
tracers - # dosage unit (or cost) professional category
- Percent of patients admitted on day antibiotics per patient day and per department)
of surgery, for selected tracers - Cost of corporate
services per patient day
Use of capacity - Average inventory in stock, for - Operating Room Bed occupancy rate
pharmaceuticals, blood products, utilization rate
surgical disposable equipment
- Operating room unused sessions
Financial performance - Cash-Flow/Debt
Patient centeredness
Patient centeredness is primarily assessed through patient surveys. Many hospitals will need help
in introducing patient surveys; others may be encouraged to ensure broad coverage for internal
benchmarking even if they do not use a standard instrument. Hospitals should include results of
their “home-made”, non-standardized, survey into the reporting scheme and monitor evolution
over time. Although results may only be used for internal comparisons, the introduction of
standardized questionnaires tested for validity and reliability on a large scale are strongly
preferred.
Table 4: Final list of indicators for patient centeredness
Dimension / Sub-dimension Core Tailored Interpretative
information
Patient centeredness - Average score on overall
perception/satisfaction items in
patient surveys
Interpersonal aspects - Average score on
interpersonal aspects items in
patient surveys
Client orientation: access - Percent of cancelled one- - Average score on access
day surgical procedures cancelled items in patient surveys
on day of surgery
Client orientation: amenities - Average score on basic
amenities items in patient
surveys
Client orientation: comprehensiveness ? ?
Client orientation: information and - Average score on
empowerment information and empowerment
items in patient surveys
Client orientation: continuity - Average score on
continuity of care items in patient
surveys
16. EUR/03/5038066
page 12
Staff orientation and staff safety
The following issues around indicators were raised:
- Operational definition of training days: How are “training days” to be defined? How
would in-service training be included? Are they measures of structure or of process?
Would training budget as a percentage of staff budget be a better measure? Both training
days and training budget as a percentage of budget staff were retained after having been
considered complementary tools and will be tested through the pilot implementation.
- Staff surveys should be a priority for further developments of indicators. However, no
indicator based on staff surveys results is included in the core set because even if
standardised staff survey tools exist, they are not widely applicable in the participating
countries. They will have to be widely adapted to the situation. Moreover, many countries
do not have a culture of surveying either patients or staff and would be slow to adopt
such recommendation.
Table 5: Final list of indicators for staff orientation and staff safety
Dimension / Sub-dimension Core Tailored Interpretative
information
Economic factors Wages paid on time Salary and benefits
Variation in workforce
Practice environment Results of staff survey on job HR survey on strategies to
content adequate staffing to needs
Perspective and recognition of individual Number training hours on total
needs number of working hours
Training budget on total budget
dedicated to staff
Health promotion and safety initiatives Budget dedicated to staff HP Percent job descriptions with risk
activities on total number of full time assessment
equivalent staff
Staff experience Result of staff survey on
organizational climate
Behavioural responses Number of days of short-term Turnover rate
absenteeism (1 to 3 days) on total
number of days contracted (stratified
by department and profession)
Number of days of long-term
absenteeism (more 42 days) on total
number of days contracted (stratified
by department and profession.)
Staff safety Number of work-related injuries Number of assaults on staff
(stratified by type) on total number of
staff
Safety processes Staff excessive working hours
Responsive governance and environmental safety
Waiting time must be analysed by urgency and interpreted to discriminate between the efficiency
of waiting list management as opposed to the stewardship of health system resources. Potential
medical conditions should be added to potential surgical procedures in waiting times.
17. EUR/03/5038066
page 13
Table 6: Final list of indicators for responsive governance and environmental safety
Dimension / Sub-dimension Core Tailored Interpretative
information
Responsive governance and environmental safety
System integration and continuity - Average score on items on - Result of audit of discharge Description of roles and
perceived continuity in patient preparation functions implemented to
surveys - Result of Appropriateness foster integration of care
- Percent discharge letters sent to Evaluation Protocol for geriatric
GPs within 2 weeks patients
Public Health Orientation: access - Waiting time for selected - Score on items on Description of strategies
tracers (median & variance) perceived financial access in implemented for the
patient surveys management of waiting list
Public Health Orientation: Health - % women breastfeeding at - % AMI and CHF with lifestyle Self-assessment of WHO
promotion discharge counselling (audit) documented Baby Friendly standards
in record
Equity and ethics ? ?
Environmental concerns ? ?
Summary definitions of the core set of indicators
Table 7: The final set of indicators and their definition, numerators and description are included
in Table 7
Dimension / Sub- Definition of the indicator
dimension
1- Clinical effectiveness
Primary caesarean section delivery
Numerator: Number of cases within the denominator with caesarean section
Denominator: Number of cases with first time deliveries
Alternative definition: caesarean section deliveries rate primigravidae
Numerator: total number of caesarean section delivery cases
Processes of care Denominator: total number of deliveries
Appropriateness of prophylactic antibiotic use for selected tracer procedures
Numerator: Number of patients who receive prophylactic antibiotics in adherence to accepted guidelines
for selected procedures
Denominator: Total number of patients for selected procedures in the random sample of medical records
audited
Readmission for selected tracer conditions / procedures within the same hospital
Numerator: Total number of patients readmitted to the emergency department of the same hospital within
a fixed follow-up period relevant to initial condition procedure and with a readmission diagnosis relevant
Outcomes of processes to the initial care
of care
Denominator: Total number of patients admitted for selected tracer condition (e.g. asthma, diabetes,
pneumonia, CABG)
Exclusion criteria: Patients admitted for the same tracer condition who died during the first spell
Admission after one-day surgery
Numerator: Number of patients transferred from the day procedure facility following an operation
procedure (by selected procedure, e.g. cardiac catheterization, digestive, respiratory or urinary system
diagnostic endoscopy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, one-day cataract surgery, curettage and dilatation of
uterus) to an overnight facility, directly or within 12 hours
Denominator: Total number of patients who have an operation / procedure performed in the procedure
facility
Exclusion criteria: Readmission for further planned operation to be excluded from both numerator and
denominator
18. EUR/03/5038066
page 14
Return to ICU
Numerator: Total number of patients with selected conditions / procedures discharged from intensive care
unit who return to ICU within 48 hours
Denominator: Total number of patients with selected conditions / procedures discharged
alive from ICU
2- Efficiency
Ambulatory surgery use
Numerator: Number of laparoscopic cholecystectomies, one-day cataract surgeries, curettage and
dilatation of the uterus and oncology procedures performed in the day procedure facility (no overnight stay
expected) over a period
Denominator: Total number of procedures over the same period
Appropriateness
Admissions on day of surgery
Numerator: Total number of admissions on day of surgery
Denominator: Total number of patients admitted for surgery
Median (or average) length of stay for specific procedures and conditions: hip replacement, CABG,
diabetes and asthma, appendectomy
Numerator: Total number of days for specific procedures and conditions: hip replacement, CABG,
diabetes and asthma, appendectomy
Input related to output
Denominator: Total number of patients admitted for hip replacement, CABG, diabetes and asthma,
appendectomy
Exclusion criteria: transfer to / from other hospitals.
Inventory in stock
Numerator: Total value inventory at the end of the year for pharmaceuticals, blood products, surgical
disposable equipment
Denominator: Total expenditures for pharmaceuticals, blood products, surgical disposable equipment / 365
days
Use of capacity
Operating rooms unused sessions
Numerator: Number of sessions used.
Denominator: Number of sessions staffed
Exclusion: Night surgical session (8 PM – 8 AM?)
3- Staff orientation (or staff responsiveness)
Practice environment
Staff training
Training days
Numerator: total number of training hours
Perspectives and Denominator: total number of working hours
recognition of individual
needs Stratification proposed: by professional category
Training budget
Numerator: total amount of budget dedicated to staff training
Denominator: total amount of budget dedicated to staff
Health Promotion budget
Health Promotion
Numerator: total amount of budget dedicated to staff health promotion activities
activities
Denominator: total number of EFT staff
19. EUR/03/5038066
page 15
Absenteeism
Short-term absenteeism
Consequences Numerator: total number of short-term absenteeism days (from 1 to 3 days)
Denominator: total number of working days
Desegregation proposed: to be considered at hospital level but also stratified by department and
professional category
Long term absenteeism
Numerator: total number of long-term absenteeism days (> 42days) over a period
Denominator: total number of working days over a period
Stratification proposed: to be considered at hospital level but also stratified by department and professional
category
4- Responsive governance
System / community Perceived continuity through patient survey (see patient centeredness)
integration
Discharge letters to general practitioners
Numerator: Number of discharge letters sent to general practitioners within a maximum period of two
weeks
Denominator: Total number of discharge
Waiting time for selected procedures and conditions
Variance of waiting time for specific surgical procedures and conditions: total hip replacement, hallux
valgus, varicose veins surgery, breast cancer surgery, cataract surgery, cardiac surgery (differentiated by
degree of emergency)
Public health orientation
Breastfeeding at discharge
Numerator: Total number of women breastfeeding at discharge
Denominator: Total number of deliveries
Criteria for inclusion: singleton, born at greater or equal 37 weeks, weight >2,500 grams
Environmental safety
5- Patient centeredness
Score on patient experience/satisfaction questionnaire, including items on:
- Overall perception / satisfaction
Client orientation - Interpersonal aspects
- Client orientation: information and empowerment
- Client orientation: continuity
Cancelled one day surgical procedures
Numerator: Number of patients booked for a one day surgical procedure cancelled on the day of the
procedure or after admission
Respect for patients
Denominator: Total number of patients booked for a one-day surgical procedure
20. EUR/03/5038066
page 16
3.3 Feedback of results to participating hospitals
The main message to convey is that indicators should not be interpreted in isolation because:
- the six dimensions are interrelated;
- each dimension has its own conceptual model and sub-dimensions;
- each indicator relates to other indicators within its dimension or other dimensions.
Trade-offs between indicators need to be highlighted and being taken into consideration when
reporting. Reporting is a crucial step towards the interpretation of results of indicators as part of
a process of quality improvement.
The discussions on the reporting tool, focused on its function as a retrospective, strategic
summary (“scorecard”) or as a real-time operational system (“dashboard”). The second
approach was chosen for this project. Moreover, the term “scorecard” implies a score, which is
very much value-loaded and implies a judgement. Though the opposite message should be
conveyed: indicators cannot be used as definite judgement on hospital’s quality, they should be
used as flags and as a starting point in a quality improvement process.
The purpose of the balanced dashboard is to provide information to guide decision-making and
quality improvement. Therefore the reporting scheme will relate results to external references as
well as internal comparisons over time, and give guidance on interpretation.
The structure of a balanced dashboard to report results to participating hospitals was proposed.
Indicators are organized in “embedded levels”. On the first page, a synthetic overview over all
dimensions is given. The following pages focus on specific dimensions and the dashboard ends
up with a detailed description of each individual indicator with comparisons with different
references, a focus on evolution over the past assessments, identification of relevant variables
and other indicators that may influence or be influenced by.
The specifications of the dashboard will initially be defined during the field implementation of
the project in a limited number of countries. Constant feedback from the field will be
incorporated to ensure that the tool is really valuable and usable by future participating hospitals.
The design of reports should comply with the structure of accountability and authority within the
institution.
Implementation, the Danish experience
Two current projects (one national, one in Copenhagen hospitals) provide practical experience of
the development and use of clinical indicators relying largely on routine clinical data held in
disease specific registers. These produce monthly and quarterly reports focused by clinical
specialty with comparative data and thresholds defined by peer group providers. Evaluation
showed that clinicians need to learn skills in the use and interpretation of data as well as
inducement to supervise the quality of clinical data abstraction and coding.
21. EUR/03/5038066
page 17
4. Conclusions
4.1. Summary of products
A number of products were developed in the frame of this project:
- identification of WHO strategic orientations related to hospital performance
- emerging conceptual model of performance standards and measures, identification of the
key dimensions of hospital performance (Product 1)
- a framework for evidence-based indicator selection (Product 2)
- growing catalogue of performance standards and indicators, and review of the literature
on their importance and usefulness, reliability and validity, contextual factors, current
uses, etc. (Product 3)
- the definition of a core set of indicators that represent the different dimensions and sub-
dimensions of performance in a balanced way (Product 3)
- the identification of the relationship betweens indicators within dimension and between
dimensions and exogenous factors that affect them (Product 4)
- an insight into the importance, usefulness, impact on quality and general availability of
potential indicators in ten European countries, through a survey in 10 countries (May
2003)
- a framework for the design of a reporting instrument called “balanced dashboard”
(Product 5).
After having agreed on the final selection of indicators, the following orientations were agreed
on:
- indicators are not measures but flags signalling potential problems that need a deep
analysis of variations and understanding of factors that influence them. These variations
may either reflect variations in quality of care, or may just reflect variations in the quality
of data, or variations in the context and exogenous variables.
- evidence is often used as an absolute value, but the discussions made clear that evidence
may change over time and may depend on the context and not be of global value.
- specific training is needed in skills for handling complex tools; while simple tools could
be handled without advanced expertise. Some target countries do not have a tradition for
using complex tools in quality management of health care, so the hospital performance
model must be tailored to them.
- the aim of this project is to develop a model giving maximal value for quality
improvement at hospital level and not especially for international benchmarking.
A tool for performance measurement may deviate from its purpose and therefore it must be
carefully assessed if the tool developed could have any unwanted incentives built in. This must
be considered carefully in the pilot implementation period.
22. EUR/03/5038066
page 18
4.2. Recommendations on data related issues
4.2.1. Collection and quality control of hospital data
Collection and quality control of hospital data should be the responsibility of each hospital; i.e.
clinical data capture, coding, validation. This could be monitored by meta-indicators such as
average number of ICD codes per discharge for each hospital or by showing compliance with
agreed internal processes and checks (such as “data accreditation”). If hard measures are not
available for quality control of hospital data, a self-assessment of data quality will be performed
by participating hospitals.
Regarding its resources and overall objective, the role of WHO might be limited in terms of
concrete implementation support for collecting, validating, aggregating and presenting
indicators. The role of WHO is to support its Member States to develop national capacities for
assessing hospital performance.
The indicators could be used (piloted initially) by individual hospitals and by aggregated
databases at national level. This will support the simultaneous validation of the model, the
indicators and the implementation.
4.2.2. Data aggregation
Data aggregation ideally would be done by an independent agency at national or international
level. To maintain objectivity, this agency would audit data, standardise aggregation; make
adjustments and the calculation of distributions, norms and significance. The agency needs for
time and resources should be realistically projected and funded.
However even if hospital performance networks are configured at national level, they should be
linked at international level. WHO could support this linkage either by directly or through other
institutions or NGOs as the International Hospital Federation. In addition to data aggregation,
there will be a continuing need for revising guidance on the application and interpretation of the
indicators.
The demonstration of “success stories” will depend heavily on internal assessment and external
benchmarking that will have to be adjusted for risk and case-mix, and stratified to promote
genuine peer comparison. In the short term, reference comparisons will be mostly internal until
results are available for aggregation and pooling.
4.3. Recommendations on roles and responsibilities for piloting the
framework for hospital performance assessment
4.3.1. Beneficiaries
The main beneficiaries are the hospitals themselves. The first contact should be the chief
executive or governing body of an institution, although it is important to ensure that clinicians
are involved, at least enough to be committed to contributing to the accuracy of clinical data.
This assumes that managers actually have the authority to manage and to improve performance.
23. EUR/03/5038066
page 19
For this reason, pilot sites need to be selected on the basis of shared objectives and timescale and
managers need to be able to take executive decisions to respond to the issues addressed by the
indicators.
Governments could also support the project by providing funding for the initial testing and
validation of data and development of norms and benchmarks. Even if government funding is not
provided, hospitals may have difficulties in keeping the resulting data from their regulatory
bodies. It is therefore important to make clear the limitations of the indicators when applied for
purposes other than internal management.
Hospital-specific results are not for public reporting. However, a communication plan focusing
on the public to describe the nature of the project and subsequent quality improvement actions
could be designed by hospitals and national bodies. The initiative is fostering quality
improvement actions and hence the public will indirectly benefit from the project.
A compromise on explicit conditions including data quality, information management, use of
indicators etc. should be fostered with WHO European Hospital Performance project.
Mechanisms for monitoring and reporting back to WHO should also be established.
4.3.2. Project management/leadership
Hospitals need to define terms of reference to identify the general requirements on skills and
experience, including leadership and credible academic links. The leadership role may
correspond to a senior manager or clinician, assuming he/she has the required technical skills.
The project manager would need to be “the charismatic” leader and should be supported by a
technical team.
A national level committee or group may be valuable at governmental level (especially if the
project is centrally sponsored), or through an NGO such as hospital or medical association where
these exist (especially if private and public hospitals are to be involved).
4.3.3. Selection of indicators at local /national level
There should not be a minimum number of indicators collected by individual hospitals in order
to participate in the WHO programme, but sites should be strongly encouraged to take as many
indicators as possible and to avoid the misuse of data. There would be no upper limit to the
number of indicators in the “tailored” basket, to which any existing local indicators could be
added.
In practice, hospitals are likely to adopt any indicators that can be derived at minimal costs and
effort from their existing data, but they should be strongly advised to include some core
measures – preferably all – in each dimension and stick to the strategy of the project, which
consists in assessing interrelated indicators in the context of the overall performance of the
hospital. Certainly each country should be encouraged to identify some hospitals that will collect
data for all of the core measures.
24. EUR/03/5038066
page 20
4.3.6. Training implications
Most potential users would not have the necessary to make effective use of the proposed
indicators. There must be arrangements for initial and continuing training for pilot sites, and for
cascading this at national level.
WHO will prepare a user manual (in process), but local induction will be essential for the
principal users. An initial two days workshop for hospital project leaders in each country would
facilitate understanding and implementation. A further training of data technical staff and coding
staff in technical procedures and in meeting data accreditation standards will also be needed.
This could be integrated with formal management and clinical training but can also be achieved
informally though user networks.
4.4. General recommendations for implementation of the
framework for hospital performance assessment
The following points were agreed on:
- It is important to identify the project leader (senior managers, clinicians, other) to avoid
the political barriers and seek local support from authorities
- The validity of the model and indicators (the “product”) should be evaluated – including
its uptake and impact on hospital performance (improvement as well as perverse
behaviour) - over a period of defined years
- Regarding the pilot of the overall model, it should be referred to implementation rather
than pilot testing (it will avoid the idea of scientific validation but will rather insist on the
practical use and refinement of the model)
- The implementation should be designed according to the national context (i.e. a country-
by-country approach)
- Intergovernmental relationship between WHO and potential partners e.g. NGO such as
the IHF should be considered for possibly hosting in the future a European database
allowing benchmarking between the hospitals of the different European countries
- Develop expanded guidance on the collection and interpretation of individual indicators
- Identify the resources (time, data, training, money) which hospitals need to implement
the package
4.5. The steps forward
Hospital performance is an ongoing work and indicators will need to be regularly reviewed in
light of new evidence. Remaining gaps that reduce the content validity of the core set were
identified, such as indicators of comprehensiveness and internal continuity are lacking. When
such indicators will become available they will need to be included in the set.
In summary, the group has developed a prototype but has not tested it or defined “after-sales”
service or longer-term development. Remaining actions will include:
25. EUR/03/5038066
page 21
- develop user manual,
- define data quality standards and capacity needs for hospital data systems,
- define selection criteria for hospitals participating to the pilot implementation,
- define a strategy for cascade training of hospital project leaders,
- develop and maintain participant networks,
- identify agencies or mechanisms for data validation and aggregation,
- design scope and schedule of programme for development and revision of indicators.
Within these actions, the next steps agreed upon are the following:
- Refinement of the indicator model and the specifications of individual measures using,
where available, existing published guidance on numerators, denominators, sample
frames, coding criteria and interpretation notes (January 2004 workshop).
- Develop an introductory manual to describe the project (as work in progress), the
conceptual model, some well-tested and agreed indicators and examples of others which
need further development
- Further presentation of each indicator selected in the core or tailored basket. Include
preface guidance on each indicator to identify the values and related standards.
- Development of educational support as a primary product for pilot sites and then other
users.
- Pilot implementation in 6 countries in a limited number of hospitals to evaluate the
usefulness of the framework for hospitals and identify the resources (time, data, training,
money) which hospitals need to implement the package. Define expected outcomes of the
pilot implementation.
- Run three-day workshop for country representatives (January 2004 workshop).
- As participants and experience grow, a mechanism should be developed to evaluate the
indicators (technical) and the impact of the project (behavioural); this could be
channelled through periodic meetings of user hospitals to pool and exchange data and
indicator results.
A number of WHO Member States showed interest in hospital performance management during
2003, and are potential users of the indicator set; the maximization of the use of this model for
country-specific work was consequently addressed.
26. EUR/03/5038066
page 22
Annex 1
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
June 2003
The WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services in Barcelona, Division of Country Support,
is organizing a third workshop on Hospital Performance measurement from 13-14 June 2003.
Continuing the second meeting, held in March 2003, this workshop is part of a WHO initiative to
develop a Hospital Quality Improvement Strategy to support Member States in the
implementation of Hospital performance assessment strategies and use of key indicators.
The project has three main objectives:
1. Collect evidence on the use of hospital performance assessment models to support
countries in their implementation.
2. Support the Member States for producing benchmarking tools to allow hospitals to
compare themselves to peer groups in order to improve the quality of care provided.
3. Build an experts’ network on hospital performance assessment to support country
implementation and analyze outcomes.
The work will be done in three stages: analysis of existing models worldwide and definition of a
model, congruent with WHO’s policy orientations, which could be used throughout Europe;
piloting of the agreed model, validated by groups of experts in a range of different countries
(between 6 and 9 countries); and development of guidelines to facilitate country implementation.
Conclusions of the first workshop were the proposal of generic definitions adapted to the context
of this project, definitions of key dimensions of hospital performance promoting a
comprehensive model of hospital performance measurement and recommendations regarding the
design of a benchmarking network allowing participants to compare their own performance to
peer hospitals through relevant performance indicators.
The group of experts agreed on six key dimensions for assessing hospital performance:
• Clinical effectiveness
• Safety
• Patient centeredness
• Production efficiency
• Staff orientation
• Responsive governance
During the second workshop, the expansion of the key dimensions of hospital performance, the
design and the test of a framework to select evidence-based performance indicators, the review
and first assessment of performance indicators, and the pilot test of the future set of indicators
were discussed.
27. EUR/03/5038066
page 23
The following conclusions were reached: progress was made in the definition of the main
concepts of hospital performance; agreement on the sub-dimensions of hospital performance;
agreement on a framework for selecting evidence-based indicators and on the orientations of the
pilot test.
The purpose of the third workshop will be to:
i. discuss the results of the questionnaire on indicators conducted in 25 European countries in
May 2003;
ii. select the set of indicators and performance tools which will be pilot tested in a range of
European countries (October 2003-April 2004);
iii. discuss the overall model of Hospital performance, agree on all definitions, dimensions,
sub-dimensions and on the general architecture of the model; and
iv. discuss the orientations and agree on the principles of the pilot test.
September 2003
The WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services in Barcelona, Division of Country Support,
is organizing a fourth and final workshop on Hospital Performance measurement from 12-13
September 2003.
Continuing the third meeting, held in June 2003, this workshop is part of a WHO initiative to
develop a Hospital Quality Improvement Strategy to support Member States in the
implementation of Hospital performance assessment strategies and use of key indicators.
The project has three main objectives:
1. Collect evidence on the use of hospital performance assessment models to support
countries in their implementation
2. Support the Member States for producing benchmarking tools to allow hospitals to
compare them to peer groups in order to improve the quality of care provided
3. Build an experts’ network on hospital performance assessment to support country
implementation and analyse outcomes
The work will be done in three stages: analysis of existing models worldwide and definition of a
model, congruent with WHO’s policy orientations, which could be used throughout Europe;
piloting of the agreed model, validated by groups of experts in a range of different countries
(between 6 and 9 countries); and development of guidelines to facilitate country implementation.
The following outcomes were achieved between January 2003 and June 2003:
- Identification of the key dimensions of hospital performance assessment
- Identification of WHO strategic orientations related to the project
- Clarification of the key dimensions and definition of the general architecture of the model
- Review of literature on hospital performance indicators and definition of a framework to
pre-select evidence-based indicators
- Survey on the importance, usefulness, impact on quality and general availability of potential
indicators by hospital managers in different European countries (May 2003 – 12 European
countries)
- Pre-selection of performance indicators on a scientific basis
- Selection of the sets of indicators and completion of the first draft of the model
28. EUR/03/5038066
page 24
The overall purpose of the fourth workshop is to finalize the design of a balanced scorecard
model, which could be pilot tested in 6 European countries.
The three major objectives of the workshop will be to:
1. Finalize the core set of performance indicators included the balanced scorecard and
characterize the trade-offs between the selected indicators
2. Design a dashboard (balanced scorecard model) enhancing evidence-based management
and related challenges
3. Consequently define relevant strategies for the preparation of the pilot test
The expected detailed outcomes of the workshop are:
For the first objective
1.1. To reach an agreement on the final core set of indicators to be included in the balance
scorecard
1.2. To agree on the trade-offs between hospital performance indicators and selected in the core
set
For the second objective
2.1. To reach an agreement on the design of a dashboard enhancing evidence-based management
2.2. To agree on the main challenges and strategies for facilitating the appropriation of the results
For the third objective
3.1. To agree on the strategies for preparing the pilot test in six European countries
(implementation test of the balanced scorecard in Albania, Denmark, France, Germany, Georgia,
Lithuania)
29. EUR/03/5038066
page 25
Annex 2
PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME
Friday, 13 June 2003
09.00 – 09.10 Introduction: Jeremy Veillard
09.10 – 09.20 Outline of the project: Jeremy Veillard
09.20 – 09.30 Discussion
09.30 – 09.50 Theoretical frame of Hospital Performance Assessment: Niek Klazinga
09.50 – 10.30 Discussion
Chair: Vahe Kazandjian
10.30 – 11.00 COFFEE BREAK
11.00 – 11.30 Presentation of the pre-selected list of indicators: François Champagne and Ann-Lise
Guisset
11.30 – 12.00 Discussion
Chair: Brian Collopy
12.00 – 12.15 Presentation of the results of the European questionnaire on indicators
12.15 – 12.45 Discussion
Chair: Brian Collopy
12.45 – 14.00 LUNCH BREAK
14.00 – 16.00 Sub working groups – selection of indicators
16.00 – 16.30 COFFEE BREAK
16.30 – 18.00 Sub working groups – selection of indicators (continuation)
18.00 Closure of the first day
Saturday, 14 June 2003
09.00 – 10.30 Sub working groups – selection of indicators (continuation)
10.30 – 11.00 COFFEE BREAK
11.00 – 13.00 Plenary session – presentation of the indicators selected by the working groups
Chair: Ann Rooney
13.00 – 14.00 LUNCH BREAK
14.00 – 14.30 Synthesis and identification of major issues
François Champagne and Ann-Lise Guisset
14.30 – 15.30 Discussion
Chair: Niek Klazinga
15.30 – 16.00 COFFEE BREAK
16.00 – 16.15 First orientations for pilot testing the set of indicators: Jeremy Veillard
16.15 – 16.45 Discussion
Chair: Dr Pierre Lombrail
16.45 – 16.55 Wrap-up of the meeting: Charles Shaw
16.55 – 17.00 Conclusions: Jeremy Veillard
17.00 Closure of the meeting
Friday, 12 September 2003
30. EUR/03/5038066
page 26
09.00 – 09.15 Opening and introduction: Jeremy Veillard
Selection and interrelations of indicators
09.15 – 10.00 Selection of the core set of indicators: principles, choices and main challenges
Ann-Lise Guisset and François Champagne
10.00 – 10.30 Discussion
Chair: Vahé Kazandjian
10.30 – 11.00 COFFEE BREAK
11.00 – 13.00 Discussion (continuation)
Chair: Vahé Kazandjian
13.00 – 14.00 LUNCH BREAK
14.00 – 14.30 Interrelations and trade-offs between performance indicators selected in the core set
Ann-Lise Guisset and François Champagne
14.30 – 15.30 Discussion
Chair: Niek Klazinga
15.30 – 16.00 COFFEE BREAK
Appropriation of the results and related challenges
16.00 – 16.45 Identification of main challenges: from indicators to interpretation to action
Ann-Lise Guisset and François Champagne
16.45 – 17.45 Discussion
Chair: Adalsteinn Brown
17.45 – 18.00 Wrap-up: Svend Jorgensen
18.00 Closure of the first day: Jeremy Veillard
Saturday, 13 September 2003
09.00 – 09.30 Educational aspects on assessing hospital performance: Part 1: Presentation of the
dashboard
09.30 – 10.30 Discussion
Chair: Adalsteinn Brown
10.30 – 11.00 COFFEE BREAK
11.00 – 11.30 Educational aspects on assessing hospital performance: part 2: tools for facilitating
the use of the dashboard and preliminary steps for pilot testing the model
Ann-Lise Guisset and François Champagne
11.30 – 13.00 Discussion
Chair: Johann Kjaergaard
13.00 – 13.15 Wrap-up of the workshop: Charles Shaw
13.15 – 13.30 Conclusions and future steps: Jeremy Veillard
13.30 Closure of the workshop
31. EUR/03/5038066
page 27
Annex 3
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Temporary Advisers
Mr Onye Arah Telephone: +31 20 566 5049
Health Services & Systems Research. Room K2- Fax: +31206972316
203, Department of Social Medicine E-mail: o.a.arah@amc.uva.nl
Division of Clinical Methods and Public Health
Academic Medical Center
P.O. Box 22700
1100 DE Amsterdam
NETHERLANDS
Dr Adalsteinn D. Brown Telephone: +1 416 946 5023
Department of Health Policy, Management and Fax: +1 416 978 1466
Evaluation E-mail: adalsteinn.brown@utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
150 College Street, Fitzgerald Bldg., Room 147A
M5S 1A8 Toronto, ON
CANADA
Dr François Champagne Telephone: +15143432226
Professeur titulaire Fax: +15143432207
GRIS et Département d'administration de la santé E-mail: francois.champagne@umontreal.ca
Université de Montreal
B.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville
H3C 3J7 Montreal, Quebec
CANADA
Dr Brian T. Collopy Telephone: +61 3 9419 3377
Director Fax: +61 3 9416 1192
CQM Consultants E-mail: cqm@sprint.net.au
Level 4. 55 Victoria Pde
Fitzroy, Victoria 3065
AUSTRALIA
Mr Thomas Custers Telephone: +31205664786
Department of Social Medicine Fax: +31206972316
Academic Medical Center E-mail: t.custers@amc.uva.nl
P.O. Box 22700
1100 DE Amsterdam
NETHERLANDS
Ms Pilar Gavilán Telephone: +34 93 482 43 33
Responsible for the Projects Unit Fax: +34 93 482 45 27
Directorate on Organization, Information Systems, E-mail: pgavilan@ics.scs.es
Projects and Evaluation (DOSIPA)
Catalan Institute for Health
Gran via de les Corts Catalanes, 587
08007 Barcelona
SPAIN
32. EUR/03/5038066
page 28
Dr Alicia Granados Navarrete Telephone: +34 93 200 22 53
c/ Alfons XII, 23-27, 3r 3a Fax:
08006 Barcelona E-mail: aliciagranados3@hotmail.com
SPAIN
Dr Ann-Lise Guisset Telephone:
GRIS et Département d'administration de la santé Fax:
Université de Montreal E-mail: ann-lise.guisset@umontreal.ca
B.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville
H3C 3J7 Montreal, Quebec
CANADA
Dr Svend Juul Jørgensen Telephone: +34 93 241 82 70
WHO Consultant Fax: +34 93 241 82 71
WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services E-mail: sjj@es.euro.who.int
Marc Aureli, 22-36
08006 Barcelona
SPAIN
Mr Vytenis Kalibatas Telephone: +370 37 32 63 23
Deputy Managing Director Fax: +370 37 32 66 01
Kaunas Medical University Hospital E-mail: kalibata@kmu.lt
Eiveniu str. 2
LT-3007 Kaunas
LITHUANIA
Dr Vahé Kazandjian Telephone: +1 410 379 9540
President Fax: +1 410 379 9558
Center for Performance Sciences (CPS) E-mail: Vkazandjian@cpsciences.com
6820 Deerpath Road
Elkridge, MD 21075-6234
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Dr Johan Kjaergaard Telephone: +45 3531 2852
Head of Unit for Clinical Quality Fax: +45 3531 6317
Copenhagen Hospital Corporation E-mail: jk02@bbh.hosp.dk
Bispebjerg Bakke 20C
2400 København NV
DENMARK
Dr Niek Klazinga Telephone: +31 20 5664892
Department of Social Medicine Fax: +31 20 6972316
Academic Medical Center E-mail: n.s.klazinga@amc.uva.nl
P.O.Box 22700 (Meibergdreef, 9)
1100 DD Amsterdam
NETHERLANDS
33. EUR/03/5038066
page 29
Dr Pierre Lombrail Telephone: +33 2 40 84 69 20
Director Fax: +33 2 40 84 69 21
Pôle Information Médicale, d'Evaluation & de E-mail: pierre.lombrail@chu-nantes.fr
Santé Publique (PIMESP)
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes.
Hôpital Saint Jacques. 85, rue Saint Jacques
44 093 Nantes cedex 1
FRANCE
Ms Ehadu Mersini Telephone: +355 4 364614
Chief of the Planning and Medical Programs Sector Fax: +355 4 364270
Hospitals Department E-mail: ehadmers@hotmail.com
Ministry of Health
Tirana
ALBANIA
Dr Etienne Minvielle Telephone: +33144236000
INSERM Fax: +33145856856
101 rue de Tolbiac E-mail: minviel@kb.inserm.fr
75654 Paris Cedex 13
FRANCE
Ms Anne L. Rooney Telephone: +1-630-268-7445
Executive Director Fax: 1-630-268-7405
International Services E-mail: ARooney@jcrinc.com
Joint Commission Resources, Inc.
One Lincoln Centre, Suite 1340
IL 60181 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Dr Henner Schellschmidt Telephone: +49 228 843 135
Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK Fax: +49 228 843 144
Kortrijker Str. 1 E-mail:
53177 Bonn henner.schellschmidt@wido.bv.aok.de
GERMANY
Dr Rosa Suñol Telephone: +34 93 207 66 08
Foundation Avedis Donabedian Fax: +34 93 459 38 64
Provença 293 pral E-mail: fad@fadq.org
08037 Barcelona
SPAIN
Rapporteur
34. EUR/03/5038066
page 30
Dr Charles Shaw Telephone: +44 20 7307 2879
Director, Audit and Quality Fax: +44 20 7307 2422
CASPE Research E-mail: cshaw@kehf.org.uk
11-13 Cavendish Square
London W1G 0AN
UNITED KINGDOM
Observer
Professor Mohammed Hoosen Cassimjee Telephone: +27 33 3879000
Head Fax: +27 33 3979768
Department of Family Medicine E-mail: professorcassimjee@mail.com
Pietermaritzburg Metropolitan Hospital Complex
and Midlands Region
Northdale Hospital. Old Greytown Road. Private
Bag X9006
Pietermaritzburg 3200
SOUTH AFRICA
World Health Organization
Regional Office for Europe
Dr Manuela Brusoni Telephone: +34932418270
Intern Fax: +34932418271
WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services E-mail: mbr@es.euro.who.int;
Division of Country Support manuela.brusoni@uni-bocconi.it
c/ Marc Aureli, 22-36
08006 Barcelona
SPAIN
Dr Mila Garcia-Barbero Telephone: +34932418270
Head of the Office Fax: +34932418271
WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services E-mail: mgb@es.euro.who.int
Division of Country Support
c/ Marc Aureli, 22-36
08006 Barcelona
SPAIN
Mr Oliver Gröne Telephone: +34932418270
Technical Officer, Health Services Fax: +34932418271
WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services E-mail: ogr@es.euro.who.int
Division of Country Support
Dr Isuf Kalo Telephone: +45 39 17 12 65
Regional Adviser for Quality of Health Systems Fax: +45 39 17 18 64
Division of Country Support E-mail: ika@who.dk
8, Scherfigsvej
DK 2100 Copenhagen Ø
DENMARK
35. EUR/03/5038066
page 31
Mr Sergio Pracht Telephone: +34932418270
STP- Patients Pathways Fax: +34932418271
WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services E-mail: spr@es.euro.who.int
Division of Country Support
Dr Carles Triginer Borrell Telephone: +34932418270
Technical Officer, Emergency Medical Services Fax: +34932418271
WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services E-mail: ctr@es.euro.who.int
Division of Country Support
Mr Jeremy Veillard Telephone: +34 93 241 82 70
Technical Officer, Hospital Management Fax: +34 93 241 82 71
WHO Office for Integrated Health Care Services E-mail: jveillard@es.euro.who.int
Division of Country Support