No abstract

BackgroundAlthough benchmarking may improve hospital processes, research on this subject is limited. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of publications on benchmarking in specialty hospitals and a description of study characteristics.MethodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles published in English in the last 10 years. Eligible articles described a project stating benchmarking as its objective and involving a specialty hospital or specific patient category; or those dealing with the methodology or evaluation of benchmarking.ResultsOf 1,817 articles identified in total, 24 were included in the study. Articles were categorized into: pathway benchmarking, institutional benchmarking, articles on benchmark methodology or -evaluation and benchmarking using a patient registry. There was a large degree of variability:(1) study designs were mostly descriptive and retrospective; (2) not all studies generated and showed data in sufficient detail; and (3) there was variety in whether a benchmarking model was just described or if quality improvement as a consequence of the benchmark was reported upon. Most of the studies that described a benchmark model described the use of benchmarking partners from the same industry category, sometimes from all over the world.ConclusionsBenchmarking seems to be more developed in eye hospitals, emergency departments and oncology specialty hospitals. Some studies showed promising improvement effects. However, the majority of the articles lacked a structured design, and did not report on benchmark outcomes. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of benchmarking to improve quality in specialty hospitals, robust and structured designs are needed including a follow up to check whether the benchmark study has led to improvements.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2154-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multidisciplinary wound centres are currently facing an increase in both the incidence of wounds and the complexity of care. This has resulted in rising costs and increased interest in the effectiveness of treatments. Little evidence is available regarding optimal wound centre organisation and effectiveness; therefore, measuring the quality of wound centres has become more important. This study aims to assess the evidence concerning quality by describing the state of the art of wound centres and organisational effectiveness by developing indicators of quality and by assessing their suitability in a pilot study. A multi-method approach was used: a literature review performed resulted in the development of an indicator list that was consequently subjected to expert review, and a benchmark study was completed comparing eight wound centres in the Netherlands. We thus provide a description of the relevant state-of-the-art aspects of wound centre organisation, which were multidisciplinary collaborations and standardisation of the organisation of care. In literature, significant patient-related effects were observed in improved healing rates and decreased costs. A total of 48 indicators were selected. The indicator list was tested by a benchmark study pilot. In practice, the outcome indicators were especially difficult to generate. Six indicators regarding structure, three regarding process and five regarding outcome proved feasible to measure and improve quality of wound centres.