Quality evaluation and indicator comparison in health care

Abstract

By 2005 all healthcare organizations in Europe will be required to take part in a quality evaluation scheme and to collect data about the quality of their service. Hospitals and doctors will need to prove they are safe--quality is no longer assumed. These were the predictions of a recent workshop of Nordic quality experts. The pressures to assess quality are increasing, and there are many assessment, certification, accreditation and measurement schemes in use. Which is best? What evidence is there that any have been effective? How should a hospital or region introduce such a scheme? There are many proponents for different schemes, and an increasing amount of experience to help answer these questions, but little research. This paper provides an overview for non-specialists of the different quality evaluation and indicator schemes for inspection and improvement. It draws on the experiences of quality specialists and leaders in each Nordic country who have applied the schemes in public hospitals and healthcare services. How a scheme is introduced and used may be more important than which particular scheme is chosen. This is one conclusion of the Nordic workshop. Other conclusions are that there is a need for clinicians to be involved, a need to balance simplicity and low cost with scientific validity and credibility with clinicians, and a need for research into different schemes to discover their costs and benefits in healthcare.

Using Data Mining to Evaluate Patient-oriented Medical Services for Chronic Senility Outpatients

“…Furthermore, we argued that the problem with previous research methods of health care service were failed to isolate the study objects (Bergman, 1998;Ovretveit, 2001;Gross, 2004). Due to these research results cannot help health care institutions to provide differences service for variation groups.…”

A consumer-based tool for evaluating the quality of health services in the Israeli health care system following reform

“…Since the Israeli reform exclusively addressed community-based primary and secondary medical services (and not the hospital sector), the indicators developed refer mainly to the quality of ambulatory health services. The Israeli experience may be added to that gathered in recent years in other countries regarding the development and implementation of health service quality indicators (for an extensive review, see [7]). …”

“…to monitor health system performance is widely recognized [3][4][5][6][7]. However, despite the acknowledged importance of evaluation, few governments have initiated ongoing evaluation of health care reform and health system performance, and only a few studies (e.g., [6,8]) have evaluated national health care reform efforts.…”

Accreditation is not a stand-alone solution

“…"Considering the amount of time and money spent on organizational assessment, and the significance of the issue to governments, it is surprising that there is no research into the cost-effectiveness of these schemes" (15). Since that observation was made in 2001, published literature shows increasing attention to these issues, but still no clear answers.…”