OnlineOpen: This article is available free online at www.blackwell-synergy.com Summary. Following devolution, differences developed between UK countries in systems of measuring performance against a common target that ambulance services ought to respond to 75% of calls for what may be immediately life threatening emergencies (category A calls) within 8 minutes. Only in England was this target integral to a ranking system of 'star rating', which inflicted reputational damage on services that failed to hit targets, and only in England has this target been met. In other countries, the target has been missed by such large margins that services would have been publicly reported as failing, if they had been covered by the English system of star ratings. The paper argues that this case-study adds to evidence from comparisons of different systems of hospital performance measurement that, to have an effect, these systems need to be designed to inflict reputational damage on those that have performed poorly; and it explores implications of this hypothesis. The paper also asks questions about the adequacy of systems of performance measurement of ambulance services in UK countries.

No abstract

The EPSO has been a powerful driver for undertaking cross-European research, and this project is the first of many to take advantage of the access to international expertize. It has shown that through development of a framework that deconstructs national indicators, commonalities can be identified. Future work will attempt to incorporate other nations' indicators, and attempt cross-national comparison.

Since the 1990s the US and UK healthcare systems have increasingly sought to measure the quality of services in order to stimulate improvement and publish the results. Despite the very different healthcare systems, there are some striking similarities in the results of these schemes. In both countries information that creates the threat of reputational damage and the possibility of gaining kudos is particularly effective in stimulating a response. However, these responses may be perverse: gaming, falsifying of data and measurement fixation have all been uncovered. In the UK context, information is closely aligned to the regulatory and performance management framework, and there should be a role for the new Care Quality Commission in the emerging 'information landscape' of the NHS in England.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Postoperative infection is a serious problem in New Zealand and internationally with considerable human and financial costs. Also, in New Zealand, certain factors that contribute to postoperative infection are more common in Māori and Pacific populations. To date, most efforts to reduce postoperative infection have focussed on surgical aspects of care and on antibiotic prophylaxis, but recent research shows that anaesthesia providers may also have an impact on infection transmission. These providers sometimes exhibit imperfect hand hygiene and frequently transfer the blood or saliva of their patients to their work environment. In addition, intravenous medications may become contaminated whilst being drawn up and administered to patients. Working with relevant practitioners and other experts, we have developed an evidence-informed bundle to improve key aseptic practices by anaesthetists with the aim of reducing postoperative infection. The key elements of the bundle are the filtering of compatible drugs, context-relevant hand hygiene practices and enhanced maintenance of clean work surfaces. Methods We will seek support for implementation of the bundle from senior anaesthesia and hospital leadership and departmental “champions”. Anaesthetic teams and recovery room staff will be educated about the bundle and its potential benefits through presentations, written material and illustrative videos. We will implement the bundle in operating rooms where hip or knee arthroplasty or cardiac surgery procedures are undertaken in a five-site, stepped wedge, cluster randomised, quality improvement design. We will compare outcomes between approximately 5000 cases before and 5000 cases after implementation of our bundle. Outcome data will be collected from existing national and hospital databases. Our primary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital to 90 days, which is expected to reflect all serious postoperative infections. Our secondary outcome will be the rate of surgical site infection. Aseptic practice will be observed in sampled cases in each cluster before and after implementation of the bundle. Discussion If effective, our bundle may offer a practical clinical intervention to reduce postoperative infection and its associated substantial human and financial costs. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000407291 . Registered on 21 March 2018. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3402-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.