Feasibility first: Developing public performance indicators on patient safety and clinical effectiveness for Dutch hospitals

被引:73
作者
Berg, M [1 ]
Meijerink, Y
Gras, M
Goossensen, A
Schellekens, W
Haeck, J
Kallewaard, M
Kingma, H
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Med Ctr, Inst Hlth Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] CBO, Dutch Hlth Care Improvement Inst, Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Dutch Hlth Care Inspectorate, The Hague, Netherlands
[4] RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands
关键词
public performance indicators; patient safety; clinical effectiveness; Dutch hospitals;
D O I
10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.02.007
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
This paper describes the development and implementation of the first national, public and obligatory set of hospital performance indicators in the Netherlands. Focusing on effectiveness and safety, the set was developed by the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their task: monitoring the quality of the care delivered by providers. In addition, the set would enhance the transparency of the hospital sector, and stimulate individual hospitals to improve their scores. Bridging some of the classic distinctions between 'internal' and 'external' indicators, the Inspectorate's vision was to rapidly produce a feasible set of indicators that would fulfill these aims, while maximally preventing 'side effects' such as misinterpretations, defensive or perverse reactions. Explicitly avoiding the trap of searching for exhaustive validity of the indicators, the inspectorate's motto was 'feasability first'. This paper describes how this simultaneously philosophical, political and pragmatic strategy played out successfully, and how the indicator set was ultimately embraced by all parties involved. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:59 / 73
页数:15
相关论文
共 44 条
[31]   Quality collaboratives: lessons from research [J].
Ovretveit, J ;
Bate, P ;
Cleary, P ;
Cretin, S ;
Gustafson, D ;
McInnes, K ;
McLeod, H ;
Molfenter, T ;
Plsek, P ;
Robert, G ;
Shortell, S ;
Wilson, T .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2002, 11 (04) :345-351
[32]  
Porter TM, 1995, Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life
[33]   Using routine comparative data to assess the quality of health care: understanding and avoiding common pitfalls [J].
Powell, AE ;
Davies, HTO ;
Thomson, RG .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2003, 12 (02) :122-128
[34]  
Power M., 1998, AUDIT SOC RITUALS VE
[35]   Improving quality: bridging the health sector divide [J].
Pringle, M .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2003, 15 (06) :457-462
[36]   Availability and usability of data for medical practice assessment [J].
Prins, H ;
Kruisinga, FH ;
Büller, HA ;
Zwetsloot-Schonk, JHM .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2002, 14 (02) :127-137
[37]   Linking physicians' pay to the quality of care - A major experiment in the United Kingdom [J].
Roland, M .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2004, 351 (14) :1448-1454
[38]   Are diagnosis specific outcome indicators based on administrative data useful in assessing quality of hospital care? [J].
Scott, I ;
Youlden, D ;
Coory, M .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2004, 13 (01) :32-39
[39]   The three faces of performance measurement: Improvement, accountability and research [J].
Solberg, LI ;
Mosser, G ;
McDonald, S .
JOINT COMMISSION JOURNAL ON QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, 1997, 23 (03) :135-147
[40]  
STOOP AP, IN PRESS THEORY PRAC