Department of Public and Occupational Health, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Department of Public and Occupational Health, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Dec;30(12):1010-1020. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011247. Epub 2021 May 7.
This study explores the meaning of actionable healthcare performance indicators for quality of care-related decisions. To do so, we analyse the constructs of and across healthcare systems and in practice based on the literature, expert opinion and user experience.
A multiphase qualitative study was undertaken. Phases included a literature review, a first round of one-on-one interviews with a panel of academics and thought leaders in the field (n=16), and a second round of interviews with real-world users of performance indicators (n=16). Thematic analysis was conducted between phases in order to triangulate findings in a stepwise process.
Common uses of healthcare performance indicators were differentiated within micro-meso-macro contexts of healthcare systems. Each purpose of use signals different decision-making tasks, and in effect information needs. An indicator's fitness for use can be appraised by three clusters of considerations: methodological, contextual and managerial. Methodological considerations gauge an indicator's perceived importance, engagement potential, interpretability, standardisation, feasibility of remedial actions, alignment to care models and sensitivity to change. Information infrastructure, system governance, workforce capacity and learning culture were found as enabling contextual considerations. Managerial considerations influencing an indicator's use in practice were found to span the selection of indicators, data collection, analysis, display of results and delivery of information to decision-makers.
The actionability of a healthcare performance indicator should be appraised by its alignment with the intended purpose of use beyond aggregate healthcare system levels, in combination with the extent to which methodological, contextual and managerial fitness for use considerations are met. Striking a better balance between the importance weighted to an indicator's statistical merits and emphasis put to its fitness for purpose and use is needed for indicators that are ultimately actionable for quality of care-related decision-making.
本研究旨在探讨可操作的医疗保健绩效指标对于医疗保健相关决策质量的意义。为此,我们根据文献、专家意见和用户体验,分析了医疗保健系统和实践中的 和 这两个构念。
采用多阶段定性研究方法。各阶段包括文献综述、与该领域的学术专家和思想领袖进行的第一轮一对一访谈(n=16),以及对绩效指标实际使用者的第二轮访谈(n=16)。在各阶段之间进行主题分析,以逐步进行三角验证。
在医疗保健系统的微观-中观-宏观背景下,区分了医疗保健绩效指标的常见用途。每种用途都标志着不同的决策任务,实际上也对应着不同的信息需求。一个指标的适用性可以通过三个考虑因素的集群来评估:方法学、背景和管理。方法学考虑因素衡量一个指标的感知重要性、参与潜力、可解释性、标准化、纠正措施的可行性、与护理模式的一致性以及对变化的敏感性。信息基础设施、系统治理、劳动力能力和学习文化被认为是有利的背景考虑因素。在实践中影响指标使用的管理考虑因素被发现涵盖了指标的选择、数据收集、分析、结果展示以及向决策者提供信息。
医疗保健绩效指标的可操作性应根据其在超出医疗保健系统整体水平的预期用途的一致性来评估,同时还要考虑到方法学、背景和管理适用性考虑因素的程度。对于最终可用于医疗保健相关决策质量的指标,需要在指标的统计优势的重要性与指标的适用性和用途的强调之间取得更好的平衡。