The Performance Measurement Frameworks in Health Care: Appropriateness Criteria for Measuring and Evaluating the Quality-of-Care Performance through a Systematic Review

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 figure, 3 tables, and 56 references Keywords: Quality of care, performance measure, quality improvement, clinical practice, sigma six, transparency

Download Full-text

Do performance measurement models have any impact on primary health care? A systematic review

International Journal of Health Governance ◽

10.1108/ijhg-04-2020-0039 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 25 (4) ◽

pp. 319-334

Author(s):

Brahim Zaadoud ◽

Youness Chbab ◽

Aziz Chaouch

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Care ◽

Quality Of Care ◽

Primary Health Care ◽

Performance Measurement ◽

Conceptual Framework ◽

Conceptual Frameworks ◽

Content Type ◽

Primary Health

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to analyze and compare between the frameworks of performance measurement in primary health care in the world. The subject of search is to compare if the frameworks of performance measurement in primary health care have an influence on performances of health centers.Design/methodology/approachWe conducted a systematic review of the literature to (1) identify the conceptual framework for measuring quality management systems, (2) assess the effects of conceptual framework on quality improvement and quality of care outcomes. We opted for the frameworks that are more cited in the literature and we analyzed and compared between these frameworks.FindingsEight dimensions were identified for assessing performance in Primary Health Care Facilities “PHCF” in more than 50% frameworks: Effectiveness, Safety, Accessibility, Equity, Efficiency, Acceptability, Patient Centeredness and Timeliness.Research limitations/implicationsThe limits of this study can be represented by the following elements: (1) lack of exhaustiveness with regard to the current Frameworks. (2) The evaluation of reliability and validity of the qualitative studies remains difficult to appreciate. (3) Most of the evaluation tools of the primary health care are not validated yet. (4) The difference in performance levels between countries, especially for the developed countries and the multitude of the frames of measure of performance, limits the comparability of the results.Practical implicationsThis study provides a conceptual and descriptive literature on the different conceptual frameworks for performance measurement in primary health care, and a practical and useful tool for comparison between the different conceptual frameworks. Several organisations of accreditation or certification introduced, developed, incorporated and checked the indicators of clinical quality in the organizations of health care. Some studies revealed links with the governance, the access, the continuity, the coordination, the efficiency and the strength primary care (Dionne Kringos, 2018). Improvements in the quality of care have been observed in the results of accreditation and certification bodies regarding hospital infection control infrastructure, organization and performance.Originality/valueEven if the links are not established within the framework of a scientific research, quality approaches are generally recognized as an essential tool to help establishments to improve the quality and the safety of the patients. Until now, it is not still common to make evaluation of the quality of care in the “PHCF” to obtain the relevant information. The necessity of having performance measurement tools, which puts in coherence the piloting of the operational level with the strategy, to integrate the organizational objectives into the measures of operational performances and make estimate its structures towards a real management by the quality.

Download Full-text

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

10.2310/psych.1047 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Sonali P. Desai ◽

Allen Kachalia

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Quality Improvement ◽

Quality Of Care ◽

Performance Measurement ◽

Financial Incentives ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Care Delivery ◽

The United States ◽

Technological Advancement

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This chapter contains 56 references.

Download Full-text

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

10.2310/neuro.1047 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Sonali P. Desai ◽

Allen Kachalia

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Quality Improvement ◽

Quality Of Care ◽

Performance Measurement ◽

Financial Incentives ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Care Delivery ◽

The United States ◽

Technological Advancement

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This chapter contains 56 references.

Download Full-text

Do Innovative Models of Health Care Delivery Improve Quality of Care for Selected Vulnerable Populations? A Systematic Review

The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement ◽

10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30455-2 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 25 (8) ◽

pp. 408-421 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Sandeep Wadhwa ◽

Risa Lavizzo-Mourey

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Care ◽

Quality Of Care ◽

Health Care Delivery ◽

Vulnerable Populations ◽

Care Delivery ◽

Improve Quality

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review

British Journal of General Practice ◽

10.3399/bjgp17x693149 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 67 (664) ◽

pp. e800-e815 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Rishi Mandavia ◽

Nishchay Mehta ◽

Anne Schilder ◽

Elias Mossialos

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Care ◽

Quality Of Care ◽

Quality Of Health Care ◽

Financial Incentives ◽

Healthcare Quality ◽

Standards Of Care ◽

Positive Effects ◽

The Uk

BackgroundProvider financial incentives are being increasingly adopted to help improve standards of care while promoting efficiency.AimTo review the UK evidence on whether provider financial incentives are an effective way of improving the quality of health care.Design and settingSystematic review of UK evidence, undertaken in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations.MethodMEDLINE and Embase databases were searched in August 2016. Original articles that assessed the relationship between UK provider financial incentives and a quantitative measure of quality of health care were included. Studies showing improvement for all measures of quality of care were defined as ‘positive’, those that were ‘intermediate’ showed improvement in some measures, and those classified as ‘negative’ showed a worsening of measures. Studies showing no effect were documented as such. Quality was assessed using the Downs and Black quality checklist.ResultsOf the 232 published articles identified by the systematic search, 28 were included. Of these, nine reported positive effects of incentives on quality of care, 16 reported intermediate effects, two reported no effect, and one reported a negative effect. Quality assessment scores for included articles ranged from 15 to 19, out of a maximum of 22 points.ConclusionThe effects of UK provider financial incentives on healthcare quality are unclear. Owing to this uncertainty and their significant costs, use of them may be counterproductive to their goal of improving healthcare quality and efficiency. UK policymakers should be cautious when implementing these incentives — if used, they should be subject to careful long-term monitoring and evaluation. Further research is needed to assess whether provider financial incentives represent a cost-effective intervention to improve the quality of care delivered in the UK.

Download Full-text

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

10.2310/gastro.1047 ◽

2012 ◽

Author(s):

Sonali P. Desai ◽

Allen Kachalia

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Quality Improvement ◽

Quality Of Care ◽

Performance Measurement ◽

Financial Incentives ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Care Delivery ◽

The United States ◽

Technological Advancement

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 highly rendered figure, 3 tables, and 56 references.

Download Full-text