Small steps beyond benchmarking

Lange, Dylan W. de; Dongelmans, Dave A.; Keizer, Nicolette F. de

doi:10.5935/0103-507x.20170022

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, certain studies [ 53 , 54 ] have suggested that benchmarking data was generally underused by decision makers within the healthcare system. On the other hand, when healthcare providers do take into account benchmarking data, reluctance may arise when integrating this information into practice for changing behaviour and procedures [ 55 ]. The clinician’s subjective perception can also be a factor when deciding on which areas of performance to consider for improvement [ 37 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review

Willmington

Belardi

Murante

et al. 2022

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review

Willmington

Belardi

Murante

et al. 2022

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As described above, both the multi national registry Epimed [ 51 ], and Dutch intensive care registry have shown the potential for registries as more than simply reporting ICU outcomes. [ 52 , 53 ]. Both used registry data as part of a feedback loop to reinforce positive behaviours in clinical care as part of quality improvement initiatives.…”

Section: How Intensive Care Registries Can Improve Implementation and Interpretation Of Icu Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst arguably more acceptable to stakeholders, very few of the event-based outcomes reported in registries focused on the presence or inclusion of events associated with positive care outcomes [8,24,26]. Notable exceptions were the NICE registry in the Netherlands, and EpiMed (Brazil) both of which are using audit and feedback mechanisms inbuilt within electronic registry platforms to try and increase desirable events as part of quality improvement initiatives [27,28 ▪▪ ].…”

Section: What Outcomes Are Currently Being Measuredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Positive reinforcement from changes in measurement reported over time may complement existing tools for audit and feedback as part of quality improvement initiatives. As described above, both the multinational registry Epimed [33], and Dutch intensive care registry have shown the potential for registries as more than simply reporting ICU outcomes [27,28 ▪▪ ]. Both used registry data as part of a feedback loop to reinforce positive behaviours in clinical care as part of quality improvement initiatives [48].…”

Section: How Intensive Care Registries Can Improve Implementation And...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What intensive care registries can teach us about outcomes

Beane

Salluh

2021

Current Opinion in Critical Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review Critical care registries are synonymous with measurement of outcomes following critical illness. Their ability to provide longitudinal data to enable benchmarking of outcomes for comparison within units over time, and between units, both regionally and nationally is a key part of the evaluation of quality of care and ICU performance as well as a better understanding of case-mix. This review aims to summarise literature on outcome measures currently being reported in registries internationally, describe the current strengths and challenges with interpreting existing outcomes and highlight areas where registries may help improve implementation and interpretation of both existing and new outcome measures. Recent findings Outcomes being widely reported through ICU registries include measures of survival, events of interest, patient reported outcomes and measures of resource utilisation (including cost). Despite its increasing adoption, challenges with quality of reporting of outcomes measures remain. Measures of short-term survival are feasible, but those requiring longer follow-ups are increasingly difficult to interpret given the evolving nature of critical care in the context of acute and chronic disease management. Furthermore, heterogeneity in patient populations and in healthcare organisations in different settings makes use of outcome measures for international benchmarking at best complex, requiring substantial advances in their definitions and implementation to support those seeking to improve patient care. Summary Digital registries could help overcome some of the current challenges with implementing and interpreting ICU outcome data through standardisation of reporting and harmonisation of data. In addition, ICU registries could be instrumental in enabling data for feedback as part of improvement in both patient centred outcomes and in service outcomes; notably resource utilisation and efficiency.

show abstract

“…The availability of adherence to best practices, outcomes and evidence-based recommendations may decrease practice variation and improve outcomes. The NICE project has recently introduced this concept in relevant clinical areas such as pain control, red blood cell transfusion triggers or the use of antimicrobials where it is feasible to implement and perhaps reduce the evidence to practice gaps in implementation [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%