McColl A, Roderick P, Gabbay J, Ferris G
Southampton General Hospital, UK.
Qual Health Care. 1998 Jun;7(2):90-7. doi: 10.1136/qshc.7.2.90.
To determine the role of population based indicators of health outcome in local health outcome assessments; the constraints of using such indicators; how they could be made more useful; and whether health authorities had developed their own indicators of health outcome.
A structured telephone interview with representatives of 91 of the 100 English health authorities.
Interviewees, asked to give details on two clinical areas in which population health outcome assessments had been of most value, nominated 147 examples in over 30 clinical areas. They chose 50 (34%) of the examples because of an outlying national indicator, and 20 (14%) because of local variations in a national indicator. The main perceived constraints in the use of population based indicators of health outcome were: data validity and timeliness; the attributability of these health outcomes to the quality of health care; the difficulties of changing clinical behavior; and organisational change within health authorities. To make these indicators more useful interviewees wanted an increased use of process indicators as proxies for health outcome, indicator trend data, and indicator comparisons of districts with similar population structures. Some recent publications have started to consider some of these issues. 27 (30%) health authorities had developed their own indicators, mostly provider based process indicators. 10 of these used their own indicators to manage the performance of local provider units.
Population based indicators of health outcome had an important role in prompting districts to undertake population health outcome assessments. Health authorities also used these indicators to examine local variations in health outcome. They helped to highlight areas for further investigation, initiated data validation, and enabled the monitoring of changes to services. Comparative population based indicators of health outcome may have an increasing part to play in assessing the performance of health authorities.
确定基于人群的健康结果指标在地方健康结果评估中的作用;使用此类指标的限制因素;如何使其更具实用性;以及卫生当局是否制定了自己的健康结果指标。
对100个英格兰卫生当局中的91个代表进行结构化电话访谈。
当被要求详细说明两个在人群健康结果评估中最具价值的临床领域时,受访者在30多个临床领域中提名了147个例子。他们选择其中50个(34%)例子是因为有一个全国性的异常指标,20个(14%)是因为全国性指标存在地方差异。使用基于人群的健康结果指标时主要察觉到的限制因素有:数据有效性和及时性;这些健康结果与医疗质量的可归因性;改变临床行为的困难;以及卫生当局内部的组织变革。为了使这些指标更具实用性,受访者希望更多地使用过程指标作为健康结果的替代指标、指标趋势数据以及对人口结构相似地区的指标比较。最近的一些出版物已开始考虑其中一些问题。27个(30%)卫生当局制定了自己的指标,大多是基于提供者的过程指标。其中10个用自己的指标来管理当地提供者单位的绩效。
基于人群的健康结果指标在促使各地区进行人群健康结果评估方面发挥着重要作用。卫生当局也利用这些指标来研究健康结果的地方差异。它们有助于突出需要进一步调查的领域,启动数据验证,并能够监测服务的变化。基于人群的健康结果比较指标在评估卫生当局的绩效方面可能会发挥越来越大的作用。