BackgroundThe QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe) study aims to evaluate the performance of primary care systems in Europe in terms of quality, equity and costs. The study will provide an answer to the question what strong primary care systems entail and which effects primary care systems have on the performance of health care systems. QUALICOPC is funded by the European Commission under the "Seventh Framework Programme". In this article the background and design of the QUALICOPC study is described.Methods/designQUALICOPC started in 2010 and will run until 2013. Data will be collected in 31 European countries (27 EU countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey) and in Australia, Israel and New Zealand. This study uses a three level approach of data collection: the system, practice and patient. Surveys will be held among general practitioners (GPs) and their patients, providing evidence at the process and outcome level of primary care. These surveys aim to gain insight in the professional behaviour of GPs and the expectations and actions of their patients. An important aspect of this study is that each patient's questionnaire can be linked to their own GP's questionnaire. To gather data at the structure or national level, the study will use existing data sources such as the System of Health Accounts and the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor Europe (PHAMEU) database. Analyses of the data will be performed using multilevel models.DiscussionBy its design, in which different data sources are combined for comprehensive analyses, QUALICOPC will advance the state of the art in primary care research and contribute to the discussion on the merit of strengthening primary care systems and to evidence based health policy development.

The Italian Health care System provides universal coverage for comprehensive health services and is mainly financed through general taxation. Since the early 1990s, a strong decentralization policy has been adopted in Italy and the state has gradually ceded its jurisdiction to regional governments, of which there are twenty. These regions now have political, administrative, fiscal and organizational responsibility for the provision of health care. This paper examines the different governance models that the regions have adopted and investigates the performance evaluation systems (PESs) associated with them, focusing on the experience of a network of ten regional governments that share the same PES. The article draws on the wide range of governance models and PESs in order to design a natural experiment. Through an analysis of 14 indicators measured in 2007 and in 2012 for all the regions, the study examines how different performance evaluation models are associated with different health care performances and whether the network-shared PES has made any difference to the results achieved by the regions involved. The initial results support the idea that systematic benchmarking and public disclosure of data are powerful tools to guarantee the balanced and sustained improvement of the health care systems, but only if they are integrated with the regional governance mechanisms.

Since 80's the introduction of New Public Management principles has promoted the use of performance measurement to drive a more efficient, effective and accountable public sector. The adoption of a sophisticated and comprehensive multidimensional performance measurement system, which looks beyond traditional financial measures, based on organization strategies, such as the balanced scorecard, has thus been suggested. This revolution in the public management came together with the devolution processes that involved most European public health systems. Set within this context, in the last decade, each of the twenty Italian regions developed its own management tools. Among others, the Tuscan performance evaluation system (PES) has been valued as a particularly innovative and comprehensive system. This paper reports the novel experience of the Tuscan PES; in particular, it measures PES effectiveness and discusses the critical factors that could have led to the PES success. Five are the critical success factors identified by researchers: the visual reporting system, the linkage between PES and CEO's reward system, the public disclosure of data, the high level of employees and managers involvement into the entire process and the strong political commitment. All those factors run together to achieve better results; however, the process of development of the system plays a pivotal role. Scholars suggest the use of a constructive approach in order to gain effective changes in human organization. According to this stream of literature, this paper contributes by the novel experience of the Tuscan PES in addressing as a further fruitful application of the constructivist approach in healthcare.

Information sharing is the basis for clinicians' engagement and adds value to organizational performance.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

Purpose -Current performance measurement systems (PMSs) are mainly designed to measure performance at the organizational level. They tend not to assess the value created by the collaboration of multiple organizations and by the involvement of users in the value creation process, such as in healthcare. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the development of PMSs that can assess the population-based value creation process across multiple healthcare organizations while adopting a patient-based perspective. Design/methodology/approach -The paper analyzes the development of a new healthcare PMS according to a constructive approach through the development of a longitudinal case study. The focus is on the re-framing process of the PMS put in place by a large group of Italian regional health systems that have adopted a collaborative assessment framework. Findings -Framing information according to the population served and the patients' perspective supports PMSs in assessing the value creation process by evaluating the contribution given by the multiple organizations involved. Therefore, it helps prevent each service provider from working in isolation, and avoids dysfunctional behaviors. Re-framing PMSs contributes to re-focusing stakeholders' perspective toward value creation; legitimizes organizational units specifically aimed at managing transversal communication, cooperation and coordination; supports the alignment of professionals' and organizations' goals and behaviors; and fosters shared accountability among providers. Originality/value -The paper contributes to the scientific debate on PMSs by investigating a case that focuses on value creation by adopting a patient-centered perspective. Although this case comes from the healthcare sector, the underlying user-centered approach may be generalized to assess other environments, processes, or contexts in which value creation stems from the collaboration of multiple providers (integrated co-production).

Resource scarcity and increasing service demand lead health systems to cope with choices within constrained budgets. The aim of the paper is to describe the study carried out in the Tuscan Health System in Italy on how to set priorities in the disinvestment process for re-allocation. The analysis was based on 2007 data benchmarking of the Tuscan Health System with an impact on the level of resources used. For each indicator, the first step was to estimate the gap between the performance of each Health Authority (HA) and the best performance or the regional average. The second step was to measure this gap in terms of financial value. The results of the analysis demonstrated that, at the regional level, 2-7% of the healthcare budget can be re-allocated if all the institutions achieve the regional average or the best practice. The implications of this study can be useful for policy makers and the HA top management. In the context of resource scarcity, it allows managers to identify the areas where the institutions can achieve a higher level of efficiency without negative effects on quality of care and instead re-allocate resources toward services with more value for patients.

On 31st January 2020, the Italian cabinet declared a 6-month national emergency after the detection of the first two COVID-19 positive cases in Rome, two Chinese tourists travelling from Wuhan. Between then and the total lockdown introduced on 22nd March 2020 Italy was hit by an unprecedented crisis. In addition to being the first European country to be heavily swept by the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy was the first to introduce stringent lockdown measures. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and related COVID-19 pandemic have been the worst public health challenge endured in recent history by Italy. Two months since the beginning of the first wave, the estimated excess deaths in Lombardy, the hardest hit region in the country, reached a peak of more than 23,000 deaths. The extraordinary pressures exerted on the Italian Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) inevitably leads to questions about its preparedness and the appropriateness and effectiveness of responses implemented at both national and regional levels. The aim of the paper is to critically review the Italian response to the COVID-19 crisis spanning from the first early acute phases of the emergency (March–May 2020) to the relative stability of the epidemiological situation just before the second outbreak in October 2020.

Quality, as measured from the patient's perspective, does not necessarily overlap with PC performance based on structure and process indicators. The results could also stimulate a new debate on the role of economic resources and PC workforce payment mechanisms in the achievement of quality goals, in this case related to the capacity of PC systems to be responsive.