scholarly journals Hospital performance indicators in the Netherlands: a preterm delivery

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 48-49
Author(s):  
R. J. G. Peters
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Preterm Delivery ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Hospital Performance ◽  
Hospital Performance Indicators

scholarly journals Hospital Performance Indicators and Their Associated Factors in Acute Child Poisoning at a Single Poison Center, Central Saudi Arabia

Medicine ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 94 (52) ◽  
pp. e2339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Menyfah Q. Alanazi ◽  
Majed I. Al-Jeriasy ◽  
Mohammed H. Al-Assiri ◽  
Lara Y. Afesh ◽  
Fahad Alhammad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Associated Factors ◽  
Hospital Performance ◽  
Poison Center ◽  
Hospital Performance Indicators

scholarly journals Important bioindicators for health management in Romania

2014 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 337-346
Author(s):  
I. Barliba ◽  
S. Tita
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Health Management ◽  
Hospital Performance ◽  
City Hospital ◽  
Use Of Services ◽  
Hospital Performance Indicators

Performance measurement is a coherent, robust, integrated, purposeful, comprehensive, efficient and transparent system. The evaluation of healthcare performance in Romania is based on four categories of bioindicators: human resources, use of services, economic and financial aspects, as well as quality. In this work, we were mainly interested in analyzing and describing these parameters. In order to illustrate the applicability of the hospital performance indicators, we considered the results obtained for these indices from the managers of three hospitals of the same level from Romania, the ?Fili?anilor? Hospital from Filia?i, the Rovinari City Hospital and the ?egarcea City Hospital, and herein present them.

scholarly journals Can a multicomponent multidisciplinary implementation package change physicians’ and nurses’ perceptions and practices regarding thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke? An exploratory analysis of a cluster-randomized trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Golam Hasnain ◽  
Christopher R. Levi ◽  
Annika Ryan ◽  
Isobel J. Hubbard ◽  
Alix Hall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Stroke Care ◽  
Hospital Performance ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Nurses Perceptions ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
And Training ◽  
Hospital Performance Indicators

Abstract Background The Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke (TIPS) trial tested the effect of a multicomponent, multidisciplinary, collaborative intervention designed to increase the rates of intravenous thrombolysis via a cluster randomized controlled trial at 20 Australian hospitals (ten intervention, ten control). This sub-study investigated changes in self-reported perceptions and practices of physicians and nurses working in acute stroke care at the participating hospitals. Methods A survey with 74 statements was administered during the pre- and post-intervention periods to staff at 19 of the 20 hospitals. An exploratory factor analysis identified the structure of the survey items and linear mixed modeling was applied to the final survey domain scores to explore the differences between groups over time. Result The response rate was 45% for both the pre- (503 out of 1127 eligible staff from 19 hospitals) and post-intervention (414 out of 919 eligible staff from 18 hospitals) period. Four survey domains were identified: (1) hospital performance indicators, feedback, and training; (2) personal perceptions about thrombolysis evidence and implementation; (3) personal stroke skills and hospital stroke care policies; and (4) emergency and ambulance procedures. There was a significant pre- to post-intervention mean increase (0.21 95% CI 0.09; 0.34; p < 0.01) in scores relating to hospital performance indicators, feedback, and training; for the intervention hospitals compared to control hospitals. There was a corresponding increase in mean scores regarding perceptions about the thrombolysis evidence and implementation (0.21, 95% CI 0.06; 0.36; p < 0.05). Sub-group analysis indicated that the improvements were restricted to nurses’ responses. Conclusion TIPS resulted in changes in some aspects of nurses’ perceptions relating to the evidence for intravenous thrombolysis and its implementation and hospital performance indicators, feedback, and training. However, there is a need to explore further strategies for influencing the views of physicians given limited statistical power in the physician sample. Trial registration ACTRN12613000939796, UTN: U1111–1145-6762.

scholarly journals Measuring organizational performance. A review of the dimensions of hospital performance indicators

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Carini ◽  
A M Pezzullo ◽  
E M Frisicale ◽  
P Cacciatore ◽  
A Di Pilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Performance ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Hospital Performance ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Patient Centeredness ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Key Indicators ◽  
Hospital Performance Indicators

Abstract Patients’ increasing needs and expectations demand for an overall assessment of hospital performances. Several Agencies described sets of performance indicators and there is not a unanimous classification. The ImpactHTA Horizon2020 Project wants to address this aspect, developing a toolkit of key indicators to measure hospital organizational performance. The aim of this review is to identify the dimensions of quality in which hospital performance indicators are grouped, and to assess if there has been an evolution over time of the above-mentioned dimensions. Following the PRISMA statement, PubMed, Ovid and Web of Science databases were queried to perform an umbrella review. Articles focusing on secondary care settings, published January 2000-May 2018 were considered. The study design included was systematic review. 3680 records were screened and 6 systematic reviews ranging 2002-2014 were included. The following dimensions were described in at least 50% of the studies: 6 studies classified efficiency (53 indicators analyzed); 5 studies classified effectiveness (12 indicators), patient centeredness (10 indicators) and safety (8 indicators); 3 studies responsive governance (2 indicators), staff orientation (8 indicators) and timeliness (4 indicators). 3 reviews did not specify the indicators related to the dimensions listed, 1 gave a complete definition of the meaning of each dimension and related indicators. The research shows steady awareness of the importance of patient centeredness, effectiveness, efficiency, and safety dimensions; apparently, there is still not much attention to sustainability, appropriateness and accessibility in terms of indicators measuring, although those dimensions are described in one of the latest review. Another review described a new dimension, resources and capacity, which focuses on the availability of new technologies, underlining the growing importance of the adoption of digitalization in healthcare. Key messages Main dimensions of performance indicators: efficiency, effectiveness, patient centeredness, safety. More emphasis to sustainability and appropriateness to align with today’s healthcare challenges.

scholarly journals Assessing hospital performance indicators. What dimensions? Evidence from an umbrella review

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elettra Carini ◽  
Irene Gabutti ◽  
Emanuela Maria Frisicale ◽  
Andrea Di Pilla ◽  
Angelo Maria Pezzullo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Clinical Pathways ◽  
Hospital Performance ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Patient Centeredness ◽  
Efficient System ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Hospital Performance Indicators

Abstract Background Patients’ increasing needs and expectations require an overall assessment of hospital performance. Several international agencies have defined performance indicators sets but there exists no unanimous classification. The Impact HTA Horizon2020 Project wants to address this aspect, developing a toolkit of key indicators to measure hospital performance. The aim of this review is to identify and classify the dimensions of hospital performance indicators in order to develop a common language and identify a shared evidence-based way to frame and address performance assessment. Methods Following the PRISMA statement, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were queried to perform an umbrella review. Reviews focusing on hospital settings, published January 2000–June 2019 were considered. The quality of the studies selected was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. Results Six reviews ranging 2002–2014 were included. The following dimensions were described in at least half of the studies: 6 studies classified efficiency (55 indicators analyzed); 5 studies classified effectiveness (13 indicators), patient centeredness (10 indicators) and safety (8 indicators); 3 studies responsive governance (2 indicators), staff orientation (10 indicators) and timeliness (4 indicators). Three reviews did not specify the indicators related to the dimensions listed, and one article gave a complete definition of the meaning of each dimension and of the related indicators. Conclusions The research shows emphasis of the importance of patient centeredness, effectiveness, efficiency, and safety dimensions. Especially, greater attention is given to the dimensions of effectiveness and efficiency. Assessing the overall quality of clinical pathways is key in guaranteeing a truly effective and efficient system but, to date, there still exists a lack of awareness and proactivity in terms of measuring performance of nodes within networks. The effort of classifying and systematizing performance measurement techniques across hospitals is essential at the organizational, regional/national and possibly international levels to deliver top quality care to patients.

Mortality, readmission and length of stay have different relationships using hospital-level versus patient-level data: an example of the ecological fallacy affecting hospital performance indicators

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 474-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie N Hofstede ◽  
Leti van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
Dionne S Kringos ◽  
Ewout Steyerberg ◽  
Perla J Marang-van de Mheen
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Hospital Performance ◽  
Ecological Fallacy ◽  
Hospital Level ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Hospital Performance Indicators

BackgroundEcological fallacy refers to an erroneous inference about individuals on the basis of findings for the group to which those individuals belong. Suppose analysis of a large database shows that hospitals with a high proportion of long length of stay (LOS) patients also have higher than average in-hospital mortality. This may prompt efforts to reduce mortality among patients with long LOS. But patients with long LOS may not be the ones at higher risk of death. It may be that hospitals with higher mortality (regardless of LOS) also have more long LOS patients—either because of quality problems on both counts or because of unaccounted differences in case mix. To provide more insight how the ecological fallacy influences the evaluation of hospital performance indicators, we assessed whether hospital-level associations between in-hospital mortality, readmission and long LOS reflect patient-level associations.MethodsPatient admissions from the Dutch National Medical Registration (2007–2012) for specific diseases (stroke, colorectal carcinoma, heart failure, acute myocardial infarction and hip/knee replacements in patients with osteoarthritis) were analysed, as well as all admissions. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess patient-level associations. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to quantify hospital-level associations.ResultsOverall, we observed 2.2% in-hospital mortality, 8.1% readmissions and a mean LOS of 5.9 days among 8 478 884 admissions in 95 hospitals. Of the 10 disease-specific associations tested, 2 were reversed at hospital-level, 3 were consistent and 5 were only significant at either hospital-level or patient-level. A reversed association was found for stroke: patients with long LOS had 58% lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.44)), whereas the hospital-level association was reversed (r=0.30, p<0.01). Similar negative patient-level associations were found for each hospital, but LOS varied across hospitals, thereby resulting in a positive hospital-level association. A similar effect was found for long LOS and readmission in patients with heart failure.ConclusionsHospital-level associations did not reflect the same patient-level associations in 7 of 10 associations, and were even reversed in 2 associations. Ecological fallacy thus potentially influences interpretation of hospital performance when patient-level associations are not taken into account.

scholarly journals Influences of definition ambiguity on hospital performance indicator scores: examples from The Netherlands

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. A. Anema ◽  
S. N. van der Veer ◽  
J. Kievit ◽  
E. Krol-Warmerdam ◽  
C. Fischer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Performance Indicator ◽  
Hospital Performance
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document