Public Reporting and Pay for Performance in Hospital Quality Improvement

2007 ◽  
Vol 356 (5) ◽  
pp. 486-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter K. Lindenauer ◽  
Denise Remus ◽  
Sheila Roman ◽  
Michael B. Rothberg ◽  
Evan M. Benjamin ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Van Wilder ◽  
Jonas Brouwers ◽  
Bianca Cox ◽  
Luk Bruyneel ◽  
Dirk De Ridder ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Quality improvement (QI) initiatives such as accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance are increasingly being implemented globally. In Flanders, Belgium, a government policy for acute-care hospitals incorporates aforementioned initiatives. Currently, questions are raised on the sustainability of the present policy. Objective First, to summarise the various initiatives hospitals have adopted under government encouragement between 2008 and 2019. Second, to study the perspectives of healthcare stakeholders on current government policy. Methods In this multi-method study, we collected data on QI initiative implementation from governmental and institutional sources and through an online survey among hospital quality managers. We compiled an overview of QI initiative implementation for all Flemish acute-care hospitals between 2008 (n = 62) and 2019 (n = 53 after hospital mergers). Stakeholder perspectives were assessed via a second survey available to all healthcare employees and a focus group with healthcare policy experts was consulted. Variation between professions was assessed. Results QI initiatives have been increasingly implemented, especially from 2016 onwards, with the majority (87%) of hospitals having obtained a first accreditation label and all hospitals publicly reporting performance indicators, receiving regular inspections and having entered the pay-for-performance initiative. On the topic of external international accreditation, overall attitudes within the survey were predominantly neutral (36.2%), while 34.5% expressed positive and 29.3% negative views towards accreditation. In examining specific professional groups in-depth, we learned 58% of doctors regarded accreditation negatively, while doctors were judged to be the largest contributors to quality according to the majority of respondents. Conclusions Hospitals have demonstrated increased efforts into QI, especially since 2016, while perceptions on currently implemented QI initiatives among healthcare stakeholders are heterogeneous. To assure quality of care remains a top-priority for acute-care hospitals, we recommend a revision of the current multicomponent quality policy where the adoption of all initiatives is streamlined and co-created bottom-up.


2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 580-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sani Joanna Laukontaus ◽  
Pekka-Sakari Aho ◽  
Ville Pettilä ◽  
Anders Albäck ◽  
Ilkka Kantonen ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 500-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Morris ◽  
Stacey Brener ◽  
Linda Dresser ◽  
Nick Daneman ◽  
Timothy H. Dellit ◽  
...  

Introduction.Antimicrobial stewardship programs are being implemented in health care to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use, adverse events, Clostridium difficile infection, and antimicrobial resistance. There is no standardized approach to evaluate the impact of these programs.Objective.To use a structured panel process to define quality improvement metrics for evaluating antimicrobial stewardship programs in hospital settings that also have the potential to be used as part of public reporting efforts.Design.A multiphase modified Delphi technique.Setting.Paper-based survey supplemented with a 1-day consensus meeting.Participants.A 10-member expert panel from Canada and the United States was assembled to evaluate indicators for relevance, effectiveness, and the potential to aid quality improvement efforts.Results.There were a total of 5 final metrics selected by the panel: (1) days of therapy per 1000 patient-days; (2) number of patients with specific organisms that are drug resistant; (3) mortality related to antimicrobial-resistant organisms; (4) conservable days of therapy among patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI), or sepsis and bloodstream infections (BSI); and (5) unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days after discharge from the hospital in which the most responsible diagnosis was one of CAP, SSTI, sepsis or BSI. The first and second indicators were also identified as useful for accountability purposes, such as public reporting.Conclusion.We have successfully identified 2 measures for public reporting purposes and 5 measures that can be used internally in healthcare settings as quality indicators. These indicators can be implemented across diverse healthcare systems to enable ongoing evaluation of antimicrobial stewardship programs and complement efforts for improved patient safety.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document