Biomedical subjects

O A Arah

Publications and source records attributed to O A Arah.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Correlates of health and healthcare performance: applying the Canadian Health Indicators Framework at the provincial-territorial level.

BACKGROUND: Since, at the health system level, there is little research into the possible interrelationships among the various indicators of health, healthcare performance, non-medical determinants of health, and community and health system characteristics, we conducted this study to explore such interrelationships using the Canadian Health Indicators Framework. METHODS: We conducted univariate correlational analyses with health and healthcare performance as outcomes using recent Canadian data and the ten Canadian provinces and three territories as units of the analyses. For health, 6 indicators were included. Sixteen healthcare performance indicators, 12 non-medical determinants of health and 16 indicators of community and health system characteristics were also included as independent variables for the analysis. A set of decision rules was applied to guide the choice of what was considered actual and preferred performance associations. RESULTS: Health (28%) correlates more frequently with non-medical determinants than healthcare does (12%), in the preferred direction. Better health is only correlated with better healthcare performance in 13% of the cases in the preferred direction. Better health (24%) is also more frequently correlated with community and health system characteristics than healthcare is (13%), in the preferred direction. CONCLUSION: Canadian health performance is a function of multiple factors, the most frequent of which may be the non-medical determinants of health and the community characteristics as against healthcare performance. The contribution of healthcare to health may be limited only to relatively small groups which stand to benefit from effective healthcare, but its overall effect may be diluted in summary measures of population health. Interpreting multidimensional, multi-indicator performance data in their proper context may be more complex than hitherto believed.

Canada↗

PubMed2005

A performance assessment framework for hospitals: the WHO regional office for Europe PATH project.

OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe launched in 2003 a project aiming to develop and disseminate a flexible and comprehensive tool for the assessment of hospital performance and referred to as the performance assessment tool for quality improvement in hospitals (PATH). This project aims at supporting hospitals in assessing their performance, questioning their own results, and translating them into actions for improvement, by providing hospitals with tools for performance assessment and by enabling collegial support and networking among participating hospitals. METHODS: PATH was developed through a series of four workshops gathering experts representing most valuable experiences on hospital performance assessment worldwide. An extensive review of the literature on hospital performance projects was carried out, more than 100 performance indicators were scrutinized, and a survey was carried out in 20 European countries. RESULTS: Six dimensions were identified for assessing hospital performance: clinical effectiveness, safety, patient centredness, production efficiency, staff orientation and responsive governance. The following outcomes were achieved: (i) definition of the concepts and identification of key dimensions of hospital performance; (ii) design of the architecture of PATH to enhance evidence-based management and quality improvement through performance assessment; (iii) selection of a core and a tailored set of performance indicators with detailed operational definitions; (iv) identification of trade-offs between indicators; (v) elaboration of descriptive sheets for each indicator to support hospitals in interpreting their results; (vi) design of a balanced dashboard; and (vii) strategies for implementation of the PATH framework. CONCLUSION: PATH is currently being pilot implemented in eight countries to refine its framework before further expansion.

Benchmarking↗

PubMed2004

Developing a national performance indicator framework for the Dutch health system.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the first phase of the development of a national performance indicator framework for the Dutch health system. METHODS: In January 2002, we initiated an informed interactive process with the intended users-policymakers at the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport-and academics to develop both the conceptual framework and its content. Decisions were based on consensus after discussing strategic goals of the health system, information needs of policy makers at the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, and studying existing theory and international experiences with national performance indicator frameworks. We identified objectives and criteria for a framework at the national level, constructed a conceptual model, and selected indicator areas. RESULTS: As a starting point we chose a balanced scorecard reflecting four perspectives towards health system management information at the national level. These perspectives are consumer orientation, finances, delivery of high quality care, and the ability to learn and grow. We then linked the Lalonde model for population health to a balanced scorecard model. The constructed model makes the relationship between population health and health system management apparent, and facilitates the presentation of performance information from various perspectives. The model reflects the strategic goals of the Dutch health system, i.e. contributing to the production of health by providing necessary health care of good quality that is accessible for all Dutch citizens while simultaneously informing policy makers about the performance of the entire health system in all sectors (care, cure, prevention, and social services). The selected indicator areas for health system management information (20 in total) reflect the policy and management functions of the government and the defined public goals of the health system. The model was formally adopted by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in February 2003, and since then individual indicator areas have been operationalized by 30 representatives of various departments at the Ministry with continuous external research support. CONCLUSION: The merit of linking the balanced scorecard inspired model to public health data is that it facilitates the visualization of the contribution of the health system to the improvement of population health. The method of an intensive interactive indicator development process between policy makers and researchers has so far proven successful.

Delivery of Health Care↗

PubMed2004

How safe is the safety paradigm?

This paper reviews safety initiatives in the health systems of the UK, Canada, Australia, and the US. Initiatives to tackle safety shortcomings involve public-private collaborations. Patient safety agencies (to institute learning, action and safety culture), adverse event reporting and, to a lesser extent, safety related performance indicators are currently used to design safer health systems. Their benefits are mixed, but there is little debate as to their possible side effects. Foreseeable adverse effects of multiple safety organisations stem from them being too many, too vague, too narrowly focused, threatened by the medical practice environment, and too optimistic. Safety related performance indicators are most developed in the US but suffer from inadequacies of administrative data, underreporting, variable indicator definitions, "extended" use, and low sensitivity of the diagnosis coding system, and arguable preventability of the prescribed conditions. A critical appraisal of the implications of these deficiencies is important to assure the safety of current health system safety initiatives and to establish evidence based safety. It is necessary to embed health system safety (as well as patient safety) in the societal culture, structures, and policies which promote effective, user centred, high performance care while allowing for healthy innovation.

Australia↗

PubMed2003

Conceptual frameworks for health systems performance: a quest for effectiveness, quality, and improvement.

ISSUES: Countries and international organizations have recently renewed their interest in how health systems perform. This has led to the development of performance indicators for monitoring, assessing, and managing health systems to achieve effectiveness, equity, efficiency, and quality. Although the indicators populate conceptual frameworks, it is often not very clear just what the underlying concepts might be or how effectiveness is conceptualized and measured. Furthermore, there is a gap in the knowledge of how the resultant performance data are used to stimulate improvement and to ensure health care quality. ADDRESSING THE ISSUES: This paper therefore explores, individually, the conceptual bases, effectiveness and its indicators, as well as the quality improvement dynamics of the performance frameworks of the UK, Canada, Australia, US, World Health Organization, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. RESULTS: We see that they all conceive health and health system performance in one or more supportive frameworks, but differ in concepts and operations. Effectiveness often implies, nationally, the achievement of high quality outcomes of care, or internationally, the efficient achievement of system objectives, or both. Its indicators are therefore mainly outcome and, less so, process measures. The frameworks are linked to a combination of tools and initiatives to stimulate and manage performance and quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: These dynamics may ensure the proper environment for these conceptual frameworks where, alongside objectives such as equity and efficiency, effectiveness (therefore, quality) becomes the core of health systems performance.

Australia↗