PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Zinn

Publications and source records attributed to J Zinn.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

Identifying indicators of laboratory management performance: a multiple constituency approach.

The challenges for laboratory management posed by cost control, managed care, organizational restructuring, information networking and health system integration call for new measures to evaluate how effectively laboratories manage emerging performance expectations. This study identifies the Delphi panel method in achieving consensus on measures of effectiveness and considers a specific application, the identification of indicators of laboratory performance, from the perspective of key constituencies.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

Ability of surrogates to represent satisfaction of nursing home residents with quality of care.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the ability of surrogates to accurately represent nursing home residents' satisfaction with the nursing home care. DESIGN: Comparison by correlation analysis of questionnaire answers by nursing-home residents and their designated surrogates. SETTING: Four non-profit community nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred fifty-two resident-surrogate pairs were included, based on the following criteria: (1) the resident was able to respond to questions verbally and in English, had cognitive abilities sufficient to understand the questions, and had a responsible party who had a telephone number in the medical record; (2) both the resident and the surrogate agreed to be interviewed. OUTCOME MEASURES: A 26-item instrument (21 specific and 5 global items) was developed to measure surrogates' perceptions of residents' satisfaction with the quality of the physician services, nursing care, and the nursing home environment. The instrument was scored on a 4-point Likert scale in which higher scores indicated greater satisfaction and paralleled a similar instrument designed for nursing home residents. Correlation of residents' with surrogates' scores on the satisfaction instruments was examined. RESULTS: The mean score for most items was greater than 3.0, indicating overall satisfaction with the care. Correlations between surrogates and residents on specific items ranged from 0.1 to 0.55. Correlations were highest for global items and items addressing satisfaction with the environment. CONCLUSION: We conclude that nursing home residents' surrogates cannot accurately express the residents' satisfaction with all areas of nursing home care and that their evaluations should not be taken in lieu of the residents' opinions.

Aged↗

Developing key laboratory performance indicators: a feasibility study. Potential roles for CLMA.

The challenges (and opportunities) for laboratory management posed by cost control, managed care, information networks, and health system integration call for both short- and long-term responses. In rapidly evolving markets, new measures are needed to assess how effectively laboratories manage the information process. The objective of the research described in this report was to determine the feasibility of a system that would collect, analyze, and report nationally standardized indicators of laboratory performance and that would meet the needs of health system executives, managed care plans, and external agencies, as well as laboratory service providers. The feasibility study involved extensive interviews with a broad cross-section of the health-care industry, as well as a literature search of journals, newspapers, marketing brochures, and other documents addressing comparative performance assessment in the health-care industry. The study investigated the current status of comparative performance assessment in the health-care industry. We found that there are several important lessons laboratorians can learn from the experiences of others involved in key indicator development and performance assessment: Key indicators must measure those aspects of performance that are important and meaningful to laboratory customers. Indicators developed for laboratory management performance should be compatible with performance criteria established in other health-care sectors, particularly those that represent managed care and other customers of laboratory services. The identification of participants in the process of consensus development should be as inclusive as possible if the indicators are to gain wide acceptance. Standardized definitions and data collection rules are essential for data comparability. Credibility is key. It is necessary that the chosen measures be not only reliable, valid, and easy to implement, they must also be demonstrably related to patient care outcomes. In order to make meaningful interlaboratory comparisons, an effective system for peer groupings is also required. Currently available systems for collecting and reporting laboratory performance data were also reviewed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Clinical Laboratory Information Systems↗

Use of the Delphi panel method to develop consensus on laboratory performance indicators.

This research describes a pilot study to determine whether a specific technique, the delphi panel, is an effective mechanism for consensus development. If the delphi panel proved useful in developing consensus in this pilot study, it would become the basis for a second, expanded phase of research to develop a system of indicators. These indicators would be shared with users of laboratory services in a collaborative effort to build information pathways, increase efficiency, and improve outcomes.

Delphi Technique↗

The use of the Delphi panel for consensus development on indicators of laboratory performance.

The objective of this research study is to identify laboratory performance areas and indicators of performance from the perspective of key laboratory constituencies. A specific technique, the Delphi panel, is used to achieve consensus on a system of indicators that can be used by laboratory service managers to build information pathways, increase efficiency, and improve outcomes. Individual panels represented the five highest ranked stakeholder groups: hospital executives, managed care executives, referring physicians, laboratory regulators, and laboratory managers. The instruments used for the Delphi panels were developed and validated in a pilot study. After three rounds, each panel had identified a set of priority performance areas and indicators for each area. Although concurring that the Delphi was valuable and effective in identifying performance areas, participants indicated that it was less useful in developing specific indicators enabling monitoring of laboratory performance over time or cross-laboratory comparisons.

Consensus Statements as Topic↗