2018
DOI: 10.1002/cjas.1474
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Target‐Setting, Pay for Performance, and Quality Improvement: A Case Study of Ontario Hospitals’ Quality‐Improvement Plans

Abstract: This study examines whether difficult targets and quality indicators in executives' pay‐for‐performance (P4P) plans affect performance. The impact of target‐setting and P4P plans on quality improvement in the public sector is unclear. The Ontario government initiated the Quality Improvement Plan (QIP), which requires hospitals to set targets for quality indicators annually and link executive pay to target achievement since 2011. Analyzing Health Quality Ontario's database and hospitals' 2012–2013 QIPs, this st… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 42 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4 In recent years, hospital mortality and adverse events were at the forefront of the performance management agenda, with programmes of pay-for-performance tying remuneration and hospital funding to results. 21 This study shows that in-hospital mortality and adverse events have been in decline. Conversely, there are observed increases in readmission rates, and a greater number of hospitals with declining performance compared with those improving.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning
confidence: 75%
“…4 In recent years, hospital mortality and adverse events were at the forefront of the performance management agenda, with programmes of pay-for-performance tying remuneration and hospital funding to results. 21 This study shows that in-hospital mortality and adverse events have been in decline. Conversely, there are observed increases in readmission rates, and a greater number of hospitals with declining performance compared with those improving.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning
confidence: 75%