PurposeThe purpose of this article is to analyze and compare between the frameworks of performance measurement in primary health care in the world. The subject of search is to compare if the frameworks of performance measurement in primary health care have an influence on performances of health centers.Design/methodology/approachWe conducted a systematic review of the literature to (1) identify the conceptual framework for measuring quality management systems, (2) assess the effects of conceptual framework on quality improvement and quality of care outcomes. We opted for the frameworks that are more cited in the literature and we analyzed and compared between these frameworks.FindingsEight dimensions were identified for assessing performance in Primary Health Care Facilities “PHCF” in more than 50% frameworks: Effectiveness, Safety, Accessibility, Equity, Efficiency, Acceptability, Patient Centeredness and Timeliness.Research limitations/implicationsThe limits of this study can be represented by the following elements: (1) lack of exhaustiveness with regard to the current Frameworks. (2) The evaluation of reliability and validity of the qualitative studies remains difficult to appreciate. (3) Most of the evaluation tools of the primary health care are not validated yet. (4) The difference in performance levels between countries, especially for the developed countries and the multitude of the frames of measure of performance, limits the comparability of the results.Practical implicationsThis study provides a conceptual and descriptive literature on the different conceptual frameworks for performance measurement in primary health care, and a practical and useful tool for comparison between the different conceptual frameworks. Several organisations of accreditation or certification introduced, developed, incorporated and checked the indicators of clinical quality in the organizations of health care. Some studies revealed links with the governance, the access, the continuity, the coordination, the efficiency and the strength primary care (Dionne Kringos, 2018). Improvements in the quality of care have been observed in the results of accreditation and certification bodies regarding hospital infection control infrastructure, organization and performance.Originality/valueEven if the links are not established within the framework of a scientific research, quality approaches are generally recognized as an essential tool to help establishments to improve the quality and the safety of the patients. Until now, it is not still common to make evaluation of the quality of care in the “PHCF” to obtain the relevant information. The necessity of having performance measurement tools, which puts in coherence the piloting of the operational level with the strategy, to integrate the organizational objectives into the measures of operational performances and make estimate its structures towards a real management by the quality.
Object: The purpose of this article is to analyse and compare the frameworks of performance measurement in primary health care in the world. The objective is to determine whether the frameworks of performance measurement in primary health care have an influence on the performance of health centres. Method: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to: (a) identify a conceptual framework for measuring quality management systems; and (b) assess the effects of the conceptual framework on quality improvement and quality of care outcomes. We chose frameworks highly cited in the literature and analysed and compared these frameworks. Results: Eight dimensions were identified for assessing performance in primary health care facilities (PHCFs) in more than 50% frameworks: effectiveness, safety, accessibility, equity, efficiency, acceptability, patient-centredness and timeliness. Conclusion: Even if the links are not established within the framework of a scientific research, quality approaches are generally recognised as an essential tool to help establishments improve their quality of care and the safety of their patients. Until now, the evaluation of the quality of care in the 'PHCF' is not yet in place, a blatant need for performance measurement tools, relevant information, coherence between the operational and strategic levels, integration of organizational objectives in the measurement of performance in order to direct the structures towards a true management by quality..
While quality management has become essential in the industrial field, it is still looking for a place in the social field. Experiences remain very divergent, and consensus on the appropriate method and effective tools is still far from being reached. This paper aims to review the literature in the field of performance measurement and management in health care. Studies concerning performance measurement and management in health in all settings were included. Studies before 2018 were identified from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We conducted a thematic analysis of the international literature, identifying themes around the terms "performance assessment, performance evaluation, performance measurement, health indicators, conceptual framework, assessment framework, health system performance, and monitoring and evaluation. Thirty-seven articles were reviewed, and a set of conceptual frameworks were analyzed. Results were interpreted following the seven areas of the conceptual framework: Fundamental questions in performance evaluation, aims and objectives, role and goals, performance, conceptual frameworks, dysfunction of the health system, and performance assessment. All areas of care were involved, health promotion, preventive and curative care. For most organizations, performance measurement was in a relatively early stage of development or implementation. However, some dysfunctions were identified: a lack of systematic outcome assessment, a lack of documentation, a lack of resource evaluation related to quality for specific diseases, and persisting variations among providers in care for similar patients.
Objectives: The purpose of this article is to discuss the concept of performance measurement in primary health care through a framework called "Quality Contest (QC)." QC is used as a management tool and was implemented from 2007 to improve the quality of the Moroccan health care. The QC encompasses self-assessment, audit, feedback, and the development of improvement plan. Methodology: The audit peer listed 42 primary health care centers between 2010 and 2014 in four editions. The framework is a self-assessment guide which is made up of 42 items divided into 6 Domains. It was filled by the team of primary health center and a scoring guide for auditors including the expectation horizons. Results: This approach is one recommended in this process (CQ). Performance is evaluated according to the dimensions of the conceptual framework based on the stages of the Deming Cycle (Plan, Do, check, and improve). The overall average performance is 42 % with a minimum score of
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.