12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing hospital performance indicators. What dimensions? Evidence from an umbrella review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patients’ increasing needs and expectations require an overall assessment of hospital performance. Several international agencies have defined performance indicators sets but there exists no unanimous classification. The Impact HTA Horizon2020 Project wants to address this aspect, developing a toolkit of key indicators to measure hospital performance. The aim of this review is to identify and classify the dimensions of hospital performance indicators in order to develop a common language and identify a shared evidence-based way to frame and address performance assessment.

          Methods

          Following the PRISMA statement, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were queried to perform an umbrella review. Reviews focusing on hospital settings, published January 2000–June 2019 were considered. The quality of the studies selected was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool.

          Results

          Six reviews ranging 2002–2014 were included. The following dimensions were described in at least half of the studies: 6 studies classified efficiency (55 indicators analyzed); 5 studies classified effectiveness (13 indicators), patient centeredness (10 indicators) and safety (8 indicators); 3 studies responsive governance (2 indicators), staff orientation (10 indicators) and timeliness (4 indicators). Three reviews did not specify the indicators related to the dimensions listed, and one article gave a complete definition of the meaning of each dimension and of the related indicators.

          Conclusions

          The research shows emphasis of the importance of patient centeredness, effectiveness, efficiency, and safety dimensions. Especially, greater attention is given to the dimensions of effectiveness and efficiency. Assessing the overall quality of clinical pathways is key in guaranteeing a truly effective and efficient system but, to date, there still exists a lack of awareness and proactivity in terms of measuring performance of nodes within networks. The effort of classifying and systematizing performance measurement techniques across hospitals is essential at the organizational, regional/national and possibly international levels to deliver top quality care to patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

          The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

            The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature.

              Patient-centered care (PCC) has been studied for several decades. Yet a clear definition of PCC is lacking, as is an understanding of how specific PCC processes relate to patient outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the PCC literature to examine the evidence for PCC and outcomes. Three databases were searched for all years through September 2012. We retained 40 articles for the analysis. Results found mixed relationships between PCC and clinical outcomes, that is, some studies found significant relationships between specific elements of PCC and outcomes but others found no relationship. There was stronger evidence for positive influences of PCC on satisfaction and self-management. Future research should examine specific dimensions of PCC and how they relate to technical care quality, particularly some dimensions that have not been studied extensively. Future research also should identify moderating and mediating variables in the PPC-outcomes relationship.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                elettra.carini1@gmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                12 November 2020
                12 November 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 1038
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.414603.4, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, ; Rome, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.8142.f, ISNI 0000 0001 0941 3192, Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, , Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ; Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy
                [3 ]GRID grid.8142.f, ISNI 0000 0001 0941 3192, Alta Scuola di Economia e Management dei Sistemi Sanitari (ALTEMS), , Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ; Rome, Italy
                [4 ]GRID grid.435974.8, ISNI 0000 0004 1758 7282, Local Health Authority, ; ASL Roma 1, Rome, Italy
                [5 ]GRID grid.9027.c, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 3630, Dipartimento di Medicina Sperimentale, , Università di Perugia, ; Perugia, Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9422-3285
                Article
                5879
                10.1186/s12913-020-05879-y
                7663881
                33183304
                51c972ca-1067-4aca-8d89-69943efaa134
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 3 July 2020
                : 30 October 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010661, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme;
                Award ID: 779312
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Health & Social care
                hospital performance,performance dimensions,performance measurement,hospital evaluation,quality,indicator

                Comments

                Comment on this article