Developing a national framework of quality indicators for public hospitals

Association Between Utilization of Services and Perioperative Outcomes for Lung Cancer Resection

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer resection has largely focused on perioperative outcomes (eg, mortality) to benchmark performance. While variations in perioperative outcomes and in utilization of services (eg, ambulatory procedures, hospitalization) have been independently demonstrated, there has been limited evaluation of associations between these outcomes. We evaluated the association between perioperative outcomes and utilization of services to evaluate provider performance across a broader context of care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing lung cancer resection in 2017 to 2019. We utilized hierarchical logistic regression models to determine risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality and risk-adjusted utilization of services, at the hospital-level. We then evaluated utilization of services across quartiles of perioperative mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 15,168 patients across 297 hospitals underwent lung cancer resection. Mean risk- and reliability-adjusted 90-day mortality varied between 1.58% (95% CI, 1.54%-1.62%) and 2.74% (95% CI, 2.59%-2.90%) across quartiles. Risk-adjusted utilization of all ambulatory procedures was highest in the best performing (lowest mortality) quartile at 37.7% (95% CI, 33.6%-41.8%). Additionally, risk-adjusted inpatient utilization prior to and after surgery was lowest in the best performing quartile at 15% (95% CI, 13.7%-16.3%) and 19.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-21.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals with the lowest perioperative mortality demonstrated trends towards using more outpatient resources prior to surgery, but fewer inpatient services surrounding lung cancer resection. This correlation highlights the importance of incorporating utilization of services in addition to other metrics to profile the efficiency and effectiveness of centers performing lung cancer resection across a broader spectrum of care.

Developing a quality and safety assessment framework for Iran's military hospitals

BACKGROUND

The first crucial step towards military hospitals performance improvement is to develop a local and scientific tool to assess quality and safety based on the context and aims of military hospitals. This study introduces a Quality and Safety Assessment Framework (Q&SAF) for Iran's military hospitals.

METHODS

This is a literature review which continued with a qualitative study. The Q&SAF for Iran's military hospitals was developed initially, through a review of the WHO's framework for hospital performance, literature review (other related framework), review of military hospital-related local documents, consultations with a national and sub-national expert. Finally, the Delphi technique used to finalize the framework.

RESULTS

Based on the literature review results; 13 hospital Q&SAF were identified. After reviewing literature review results and expert opinions; Iran's military hospitals Q&SAF was developed with 58 indictors in five dimensions including clinical effectiveness, safety, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and Responsive Management (Command and Control). The efficiency dimension had the highest number of indictors (19 indictors), whereas the patient-centered dimension had the lowest number of indices (4 indictors).

CONCLUSION

Regarding the comprehensiveness of the developed assessment framework due to its focus on the majority of quality dimensions and important components of the hospital's performance, it can be used as a useful tool for assessing and continuously improving the quality of hospitals, particularly military hospitals.

A Scoping Review of Process Indicators for Measuring Quality of Care in Glaucoma

PRCIS

There are no standardized process quality indicators (QIs) in glaucoma care. Although they can be inferred from guidelines and trials, they should be designed and standardized to allow better assessment of the quality of care.

PURPOSE

QIs are crucial for assessing the performance of any health care system. To allow efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness, there is a need for prompt acquisition of up-to-date information. Among the available QIs, process indicators have the highest sensitivity to frequent changes and could better reflect the implementation outcomes of novel ideas and technology. This study aimed to map the available information regarding process QIs in glaucoma care, identify the current development stage of these indicators, and systematically synthesize them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a scoping review of 4 electronic bibliographic databases for studies reporting on process QIs in glaucoma. We retrieved 7502 references and created a domain list reflecting the core idea underlying each indicator.

RESULTS

We summarized information from 18 documents and listed 20 domains. The most mentioned domains were follow-up, optic nerve head assessment, visual field test, and intraocular pressure. Indicators regarding the quality of life assessment, patient assistance, or presence of written protocols were less frequently mentioned.

CONCLUSIONS

There are notable variations among process QIs in glaucoma and significant heterogeneity in their descriptions in published studies. Although novel indicators can be inferred from guidelines and trials, they should be designed and standardized for better assessment of performance in health systems to improve their quality.

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

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.

A comprehensive map of the evidence on the performance evaluation indicators of public hospitals: a scoping study and best fit framework synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Key performance indicators are essential navigation tools for hospitals. They provide managers with valid information enabling them to identify institutional strengths and weaknesses and improve managerial performance. In this study, the synthesis of evidence relating to hospital performance indicators was carried out by means of a field review and the indicators were analyzed through the Best Fit Method.

METHODS

The five-step approach of Arksey and O'Malley was used as follows: selection of the research question; search for related studies; selection and refinement of the studies; synthesis and tabulation of key information; derivation of the related summary and report. Applying the Best Fit Framework Synthesis Method, the initial themes and subthemes were created and a model of public hospitals performance evaluation finally generated.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were considered eligible to form part of the synthesis. The final model included the efficiency/productivity, effectiveness and financial themes. The efficiency/productivity sub-themes incorporated human resources indicators, hospital beds, costs, operating room productivity, emergency rooms, ICU, radiology, labs, technology and equipment productivity. Other sub-themes relate to general indicators such as BOR, ALS, number of outpatients and hospitalized patients. Financial themes included profit, revenue, cash flow, cost, investment, assets, debt and liquidity. Concerning effectiveness, the indicators were categorized in terms of access (equity), safety, quality and responsiveness. The accountability indicators were classified into patient-centeredness, staff orientation, and social responsibility.

CONCLUSION

Hospital performance management is a multi-dimensional issue, each dimension having its own significance. Based on the evidence, indicators are dependent on the evaluation model employed, the evaluation objective, and the views of executive managers and participants in the study. Selection of the most appropriate indicators is therefore key to a comprehensive performance evaluation system.