Although there were pockets of excellence and some aspects of care were well managed across health care providers, the consistent delivery of appropriate care needs improvement, and gaps in care should be addressed. There is a need for national agreement on clinical standards and better structuring of medical records to facilitate the delivery of more appropriate care.

No abstract

Objectives:Performance indicators are a popular mechanism for measuring the quality of healthcare to facilitate both quality improvement and systems management. Few studies make comparative assessments of different countries’ performance indicator frameworks. This study identifies and compares frameworks and performance indicators used in selected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development health systems to measure and report on the performance of healthcare organisations and local health systems. Countries involved are Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Scotland and the United States.Methods:Identification of comparable international indicators and analyses of their characteristics and of their broader national frameworks and contexts were undertaken. Two dimensions of indicators – that they are nationally consistent (used across the country rather than just regionally) and locally relevant (measured and reported publicly at a local level, for example, a health service) – were deemed important.Results:The most commonly used domains in performance frameworks were safety, effectiveness and access. The search found 401 indicators that fulfilled the ‘nationally consistent and locally relevant’ criteria. Of these, 45 indicators are reported in more than one country. Cardiovascular, surgery and mental health were the most frequently reported disease groups.Conclusion:These comparative data inform researchers and policymakers internationally when designing health performance frameworks and indicator sets.

The appropriate handover of patients, whereby responsibility and accountability of care is transferred between healthcare providers, is a critical component of quality healthcare delivery. This paper examines data from recent incidents relating to clinical handover in acute care settings, in order to provide a basis for the design and implementation of preventive and corrective strategies. A sample of incidents (n = 459) relating to clinical handover was extracted from an Australian health service's incident reporting system using a manual search function. Incident narratives were subjected to classification according to the system safety and quality concepts of failure type, error type, and failure detection mechanism. The most prevalent failure types associated with clinical handover were those relating to the transfer of patients without adequate handover 28.8% (n = 132), omissions of critical information about the patient's condition 19.2% (n = 88), and omissions of critical information about the patient's care plan during the handover process 14.2% (n = 65). The most prevalent failure detection mechanisms were those of expectation mismatch 35.7% (n = 174), clinical mismatch 26.9% (n = 127), and mismatch with other documentation 24.0% (n = 117). The findings suggest the need for a structured approach to handover with a recording of standardized sets of information to ensure that critical components are not omitted. Limitations of existing reporting processes are also highlighted.