Are performance indicators used for hospital quality management: a qualitative interview study amongst health professionals and quality managers in The Netherlands

Abstract

BackgroundHospitals are under increasing pressure to share indicator-based performance information. These indicators can also serve as a means to promote quality improvement and boost hospital performance. Our aim was to explore hospitals’ use of performance indicators for internal quality management activities.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative interview study among 72 health professionals and quality managers in 14 acute care hospitals in The Netherlands. Concentrating on orthopaedic and oncology departments, our goal was to gain insight into data collection and use of performance indicators for two conditions: knee and hip replacement surgery and breast cancer surgery. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and summarised. Based on the data, themes were synthesised and the analyses were executed systematically by two analysts independently. The findings were validated through comparison.ResultsThe hospitals we investigated collect data for performance indicators in different ways. Similarly, these hospitals have different ways of using such data to support their quality management, while some do not seem to use the data for this purpose at all. Factors like ‘linking pin champions’, pro-active quality managers and engaged medical specialists seem to make a difference. In addition, a comprehensive hospital data infrastructure with electronic patient records and robust data collection software appears to be a prerequisite to produce reliable external performance indicators for internal quality improvement.ConclusionsHospitals often fail to use performance indicators as a means to support internal quality management. Such data, then, are not used to its full potential. Hospitals are recommended to focus their human resource policy on ‘linking pin champions’, the engagement of professionals and a pro-active quality manager, and to invest in a comprehensive data infrastructure. Furthermore, the differences in data collection processes between Dutch hospitals make it difficult to draw comparisons between outcomes of performance indicators.

Perceived Burden Due to Registrations for Quality Monitoring and Improvement in Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study

“…14 These doubts over the reliability of data on quality indicators is unlikely only to be an issue at the level of individual healthcare professionals, but also at the organizational level. Here, Botje and colleagues 44 observed that, at times, hospitals estimate levels of compliance to be 100% merely because a protocol is present. Combined with our findings, this raises significant questions over the justification of registering such information.…”

What characteristics of provider payment mechanisms influence health care providers' behaviour? A literature review

“…This is particularly important when payments are based on performance. Health care providers view performance as a measure of their ability to provide services and a means to increase their revenues . Evidence suggests that financial rewards such as bonuses resulting from P4P is a key factor influencing provider behaviour .…”

Do perceived working conditions and patient safety culture correlate with objective workload and patient outcomes: A cross-sectional explorative study from a German university hospital

“…In addition, we want to test if perceived patient safety corresponds with objective non-disease-specific patient-safety and quality-of-care measures available in routine data. By doing so, we add to the limited existing literature concerning performance quality has rarely been linked to staff perceptions [42, 43]. Correlations between workload and patient outcomes or patient safety have mostly been assessed for specific diseases like hip fracture and myocardial infarction [44, 45].…”