Background Benchmarking has been recognised as a valuable method to help identify strengths and weaknesses at all levels of the healthcare system. Despite a growing interest in the practice and study of benchmarking, its contribution to quality of care have not been well elucidated. As such, we conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of synthesizing the evidence regarding the relationship between benchmarking and quality improvement. We also sought to provide evidence on the associated strategies that can be used to further stimulate quality improvement. Methods We searched three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) for articles studying the impact of benchmarking on quality of care (processes and outcomes). Following assessment of the articles for inclusion, we conducted data analysis, quality assessment and critical synthesis according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic literature review. Results A total of 17 articles were identified. All studies reported a positive association between the use of benchmarking and quality improvement in terms of processes (N = 10), outcomes (N = 13) or both (N = 7). In the majority of studies (N = 12), at least one intervention, complementary to benchmarking, was undertaken to stimulate quality improvement. The interventions ranged from meetings between participants to quality improvement plans and financial incentives. A combination of multiple interventions was present in over half of the studies (N = 10). Conclusions The results generated from this review suggest that the practice of benchmarking in healthcare is a growing field, and more research is needed to better understand its effects on quality improvement. Furthermore, our findings indicate that benchmarking may stimulate quality improvement, and that interventions, complementary to benchmarking, seem to reinforce this improvement. Although this study points towards the benefit of combining performance measurement with interventions in terms of quality, future research should further analyse the impact of these interventions individually.

No abstract

Since the 1980s, the international literature has reported variations for healthcare services, especially for elective ones. Variations are positive if they reflect patient preferences, while if they do not, they are unwarranted, and thus avoidable. Benign hysterectomy is among the most frequent elective surgical procedures in developed countries, and, in recent years, it has been increasingly delivered through minimally invasive surgical techniques, namely laparoscopic or robotic. The question therefore arises over what the impact of these new surgical techniques on avoidable variation is. In this study we analyze the extent of unwarranted geographical variation of treatment rates and of the adoption of minimally invasive procedures for benign hysterectomy in an Italian regional healthcare system. We assess the impact of the surgical approach on the provision of benign hysterectomy, in terms of efficiency (by measuring the average length of stay) and efficacy (by measuring the post-operative complications). Geographical variation was observed among regional health districts for treatment rates and waiting times. At a provider level, we found differences for the minimally invasive approach. We found a positive and significant association between rates and the percentage of minimally invasive procedures. Providers that frequently adopt minimally invasive procedures have shorter average length of stay, and when they also perform open hysterectomies, fewer complications.

Introduction The last two decades saw an extensive effort to design, develop and implement integrated and multidimensional healthcare evaluation systems in high-income countries. However, in low- and middle-income countries, few experiences of such systems implementation have been reported in the scientific literature. We developed and piloted an innovative evaluation tool to assess the performance of health services provision for communicable diseases in three sub-Saharan African countries. Material and methods A total of 42 indicators, 14 per each communicable disease care pathway, were developed. A sub-set of 23 indicators was included in the evaluation process. The communicable diseases care pathways were developed for Tuberculosis, Gastroenteritis, and HIV/AIDS, including indicators grouped in four care phases: prevention (or screening), diagnosis, treatment, and outcome. All indicators were calculated for the period 2017–2019, while performance evaluation was performed for the year 2019. The analysis involved four health districts and their relative hospitals in Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda. Results Substantial variability was observed over time and across the four different districts. In the Tuberculosis pathway, the majority of indicators scored below the standards and below-average performance was mainly reported for prevention and diagnosis phases. Along the Gastroenteritis pathway, excellent performance was instead evaluated for most indicators and the highest scores were reported in prevention and treatment phases. The HIV/AIDS pathway indicators related to screening and outcome phases were below the average score, while good or excellent performance was registered within the treatment phase. Conclusions The bottom-up approach and stakeholders’ engagement increased local ownership of the process and the likelihood that findings will inform health services performance and quality of care. Despite the intrinsic limitations of data sources, this framework may contribute to promoting good governance, performance evaluation, outcomes measurement and accountability in settings characterised by multiple healthcare service providers.

The literature reports some experiences regarding the design of integrated healthcare Performance Evaluation Systems (PES) applied in Low- and Middle-income Countries (LMIC). This study describes the design of an integrated and bottom-up PES aimed at evaluating healthcare services delivery in rural settings. The analysis involved four hospitals and their relative health districts in Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda. The evaluation process was undertaken for those indicators that could be evaluated using the same reference standard. The evaluation scores were determined through the international standards identified in the literature or through benchmarking assessment. Both administrative and health data were extracted from the hospitals’ registers and District Health Information Systems (DHIS) from 2017 to 2020. We defined 128 indicators: 88 were calculated at the hospital level and 40 at the health district level. The evaluation process was undertaken for 48 indicators. The evaluated indicators are represented using effective graphical tools. In settings characterised by multiple healthcare providers, this framework may contribute to achieving good governance through performance evaluation, benchmarking, and accountability. It may promote evidence-based decision-making in the planning and allocation of resources, thus ultimately fostering quality improvement processes and practices, both at the hospital and health district level.