DOCSLIB.ORG

How Health Systems Make Available Information on Service Providers Experience in Seven Countries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Health Systems Make Available Information on Service Providers Experience in Seven Countries CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public INFRASTRUCTURE AND service of the RAND Corporation. TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND TERRORISM AND Browse Reports & Bookstore HOMELAND SECURITY Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Europe View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instru- ments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports un- dergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity. How health systems make available information on service providers Experience in seven countries Mirella Cacace, Stefanie Ettelt, Laura Brereton, Janice Pedersen, Ellen Nolte Prepared for the Department of Health within the PRP project “An ‘On-call’ Facility for International Healthcare Comparisons” EUROPE The research described in this report was prepared for the Department of Health within the PRP project "An 'On-call' Facility for International Healthcare Comparisons". The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2011 by RAND and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the copyright holders. Published 2011 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 Westbrook Centre, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 1YG, United Kingdom RAND URL: http://www.rand.org RAND Europe URL: http://www.rand.org/randeurope To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface This report reviews information systems that report on the quality or performance of providers of healthcare in seven countries to inform the use and further development of quality information systems in the English NHS. The report was prepared as part of the project ‘An “On-call” Facility for International Healthcare Comparisons’ funded by the Department of Health in England through its Policy Research Programme (grant no. 0510002). The project comprises a programme of work on international healthcare comparisons that provides intelligence on new developments in other countries, involving a network of experts in a range of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to inform health (care) policy development in England. It is conducted by RAND Europe, in conjunction with the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. For more information on the project please see www.international- comparisons.org.uk. RAND Europe is an independent not-for-profit policy research organisation that aims to improve policy and decision-making in the public interest, through rigorous research and analysis. RAND Europe’s clients include European governments, institutions, NGOs and firms with a need for rigorous, independent, multidisciplinary analysis. The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is Britain’s national school of public health and a leading postgraduate institution worldwide for research and postgraduate education in global health. This report is being peer-reviewed in accordance with RAND’s quality assurance standards. For more information about RAND Europe or this report, please contact: Dr Ellen Nolte Director, Health and Healthcare RAND Europe Westbrook Centre Milton Road Cambridge CB4 1YG United Kingdom Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)1223 273853 iii iv Contents Preface......................................................................................................................... iii List of tables ................................................................................................................ ix List of boxes ................................................................................................................ xi Executive summary ................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... xvi CHAPTER 1 Introduction .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Public reporting and quality improvement ......................................................... 2 1.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Conceptualising ‘quality information systems’ ...................................... 3 1.3.2 Selection of countries ............................................................................ 4 1.3.3 Data collection ..................................................................................... 5 1.4 This report ......................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2 Overview of findings ........................................................................ 6 2.1 Institutional and policy context of quality information systems .......................... 6 2.2 Quality information systems available to patients ............................................... 8 2.3 Quality information aimed at commissioners, regulators and healthcare providers .......................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Data and indicators used by quality information systems ................................. 14 2.5 Evidence of the use of quality information systems ........................................... 19 2.6 Impact of information systems on provider quality ........................................... 21 2.7 Considerations for the design of quality information systems ........................... 21 CHAPTER 3 Denmark ........................................................................................ 23 3.1 The Danish healthcare system .......................................................................... 23 3.2 Quality information systems available to patients ............................................. 24 3.2.1 Choosing a general practitioner ............................................................. 24 3.2.2 Sygehusvalg.dk ..................................................................................... 25 3.2.3 Ventetider............................................................................................ 25 3.2.4 Sundhedskvalitet .................................................................................. 26 3.2.5 Det Nationale Indikatorprojekt ............................................................ 27 v International Healthcare Comparisons RAND Europe 3.3 Quality information aimed at commissioners, regulators and healthcare providers ......................................................................................................... 29 3.3.1 Tilsynslisten ........................................................................................ 29 3.3.2 Kliniske Kvalitetsdatabaser .................................................................. 30 3.3.3 Other sources of information ............................................................. 30 3.4 Evaluation of information systems ................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 4 England ......................................................................................... 32 4.1 The English healthcare system ......................................................................... 32 4.2 Quality information systems available to patients ...........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Population-Based Study of Patients in Danish Hospitals Who Are in Their Last Year of Life
    DANISH MEDICAL JOURNAL A population-based study of patients in Danish hospitals who are in their last year of life Lene Jarlbaek1, Helle Timm2, Merryn Gott3 & David Clark4 ABSTRACT Two similar studies were performed in Scotland [5] INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the prevalence and and in New Zealand [6]. In this study of hospitalised ORIGINAL ARTICLE distribution in Denmark of hospital inpatients who are in patients in Denmark, we used the same population- 1) REHPA, Knowledge their last year of life. Knowledge about these patients could based cohort design and study dates. Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, attract attention towards needs for their identification and The aims of this study were 1) to determine the pro- University of for optimisation of end-of-life care initiatives. The aims of portion of inpatients on a given date who died within Southern Denmark this study were to determine the proportion of prevalent in- 12 months, and 2) to describe characteristics of de- 2) REHPA, Copenhagen, patients who died during the following 12 months, to present ceased and surviving inpatients and 3) to identify in University of Southern Denmark characteristics among deceased and survivors, and to which hospitals, departments or specialities these pa- identify in which hospitals, departments or specialities 3) University of tients appear most frequently. Auckland, Auckland, imminently dying patients appear most frequently. New Zealand METHODS: This was a record-linkage cohort study of all METHODS 4) Wellcome Trust patients, who were in public somatic hospitals in Denmark Investigator, School of The study was a nationwide cohort study using record on 10 April 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Essays on the Behavioral, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Determinants of Mortality: Evidence from the United Kingdom and International Comparisons
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2016 Three Essays on the Behavioral, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Determinants of Mortality: Evidence From the United Kingdom and International Comparisons Laura Kelly University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, and the Epidemiology Commons Recommended Citation Kelly, Laura, "Three Essays on the Behavioral, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Determinants of Mortality: Evidence From the United Kingdom and International Comparisons" (2016). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1806. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1806 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1806 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Three Essays on the Behavioral, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Determinants of Mortality: Evidence From the United Kingdom and International Comparisons Abstract This dissertation contains three chapters covering the impact of behavioral, socioeconomic, and geographic determinants of health and mortality in high-income populations, with particular emphasis on the abnormally high mortality in Scotland, and the relative advantages of indirect and direct analyses in estimating national mortality. Chapter one identifies behavioral risk factors underlying mortality variation across small-areas in Great Britain, using the indirect estimation
    [Show full text]
  • The Study on Improvement of Management Information Systems in Health Sector in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
    JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA) MINISTRY OF HEALTH, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THE STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN HEALTH SECTOR IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FEBRUARY 2007 NATIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER HM SYSTEM SCIENCE CONSULTANTS INC. JR 06-46 Japan International Cooperation Agency Ministry of Health, Islamic Republic of Pakistan THE STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN HEALTH SECTOR IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN NATIONAL ACTION PLAN February 2007 National Health Information Resource Center System Science Consultants Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The National Action Plan for the Improvement of Health Information Systems in Pakistan Executive Summary The overall purpose of Health Information System (HIS) is to provide continuous information support to decision-making processes at each decision-making levels of the health system. Improving HIS in Pakistan is seen as an important investment towards improving the health care services. The guiding principle for the improvement of HIS in Pakistan is that the HIS should contribute to the continuous performance improvement of the health system in Pakistan with a vision of improving the overall health status of the population. After devolution in 2001, the districts are responsible for decision-making for health resource management and improving health services, particularly preventive, promotive and curative health services provided from primary and secondary level care facilities and outreach. A major objective of the management of the district health system is to improve its performance in order to contribute to the improvement of the health status of the population. Regular monitoring of the performance of health care services and their supporting sub-systems (e.g., logistics, financial, human resource management systems) is the first step in the performance improvement function of the district.
    [Show full text]
  • Specific Requirements for a Secondary (Referral) Hospital
    SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR A SECONDARY (REFERRAL) HOSPITAL A secondary (referral) hospital shall be defined as a facility with the following minimum requirements as listed under sections A to I below: A. Personnel B. Services C. Premises - Physical Design, Layout, Furnishing and Ancillary Facilities D. Equipment Devices and Supplies E. Wards F. Catering G. Safety and Security H. Schedules I. Records A. Personnel The minimum requirements regarding personnel for a secondary (referral) hospital must be separated according to the following 1. Board Members 2. Management Team 3. Sub-Committees 4. Heads of Departments/Units 5. Medical Practitioners 6. Additional professional staff 7. Auxiliary Staff 8. Ancillary staff (non-professional staff) 1. Board Members (Act 525) A Chairman who shall not be an employee of the hospital; The Chief Administrator of the hospital (Medical Director) The Dean of the relevant Medical School; SECONDARY HOSPITAL REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 22 Version 1.3 dated 17-Nov-2017 The Director of Administration of the hospital; The Director of Nursing Services of the hospital; The Director of Finance of the hospital; The Director of Pharmacy of the hospital; The Dean of the Dental School, where applicable; and Three other persons who by their qualification and experience can contribute to the work of the Board at least one of whom shall be a woman 2. Management Team Chief Executive Officer for the hospital must have a masters degree Director of General Administration must have a master’s degree in hospital management
    [Show full text]
  • The Four Health Systems of the United Kingdom: How Do They Compare?
    The four health systems of the United Kingdom: how do they compare? Gwyn Bevan, Marina Karanikolos, Jo Exley, Ellen Nolte, Sheelah Connolly and Nicholas Mays Source report April 2014 About this research This report is the fourth in a series dating back to 1999 which looks at how the publicly financed health care systems in the four countries of the UK have fared before and after devolution. The report was commissioned jointly by The Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust. The research team was led by Nicholas Mays at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The research looks at how the four national health systems compare and how they have performed in terms of quality and productivity before and after devolution. The research also examines performance in North East England, which is acknowledged to be the region that is most comparable to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of socioeconomic and other indicators. This report, along with an accompanying summary report, data appendices, digital outputs and a short report on the history of devolution (to be published later in 2014), are available to download free of charge at www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/compare-uk-health www.health.org.uk/compareUKhealth. Acknowledgements We are grateful: to government statisticians in the four countries for guidance on sources of data, highlighting problems of comparability and for checking the data we have used; for comments on the draft report from anonymous referees and from Vernon Bogdanor, Alec Morton and Laura Schang; and for guidance on national clinical audits from Nick Black and on nursing data from Jim Buchan.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Implementation of Health Information Systems
    Design and implementation of health information systems Edited by Theo Lippeveld Director of Health Information Systems, John Snow Inc., Boston, MA, USA Rainer Sauerborn Director of the Department of Tropical Hygiene and Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Germany Claude Bodart Project Director, German Development Cooperation, Manila, Philippines World Health Organization Geneva 2000 WHO Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Design and implementation of health information systems I edited by Theo Lippeveld, Rainer Sauerborn, Claude Bodart. 1.1nformation systems-organization and administration 2.Data collection-methods I.Lippeveld, Theo II.Sauerborn, Rainer III.Bodart, Claude ISBN 92 4 1561998 (NLM classification: WA 62.5) The World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its pub­ lications, in part or in full. Applications and enquiries should be addressed to the Office of Publi­ cations, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, which will be glad to provide the latest information on any changes made to the text, plans for new editions, and reprints and translations already available. © World Health Organization 2000 Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Health Or­ ganization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers' products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Governance and Financing of Long-Term Care
    Governance and financing of long-term care National Report Denmark Lorna Campbell | Lis Wagner Odense | March 2010 European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research (AT) • Ecole d'études sociales et pédagogiques (CH) • University of Southern Denmark (DK) • National Institute for Health and Welfare – THL (FI) • Institut de Recherche et Documentation en Economie de la Santé – IRDES (FR) • Institut für Soziale Infrastruktur (DE) • Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung – WZB (DE) • CMT Prooptiki ltd. (EL) • University of Valencia – ERI Polibienestar (ES) • Studio Come S.r.l. (IT) • Stichting Vilans (NL) • Institute for Labour and Family Research (SK) • Institute of Public Health (SI) • Forum for Knowledge and Common Development (SE) • University of Kent – CHSS (UK) • University of Birmingham – HSMC (UK) Funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme Grant agreement no. 223037 Table of contents 1 Key contextual factors 3 2 The governance and financing of long-term care services for older people 4 3 Key barriers to joint working 8 3.1 Structural 8 3.2 Procedural 8 3.3 Financial 9 3.4 Professional 9 3.5 Issues of status and legitimacy 9 4 Key enablers 10 4.1 Shared vision 10 4.2 Clarity of roles and responsibilities 10 5 The funding of long-term care services 11 6 Financial sustainability 11 7 Good practice 12 7.1 Telemedicine 14 8 Ongoing tensions 14 9 Embedding good practice in everyday practice 15 10 References 16 Campbell | Wagner Governance and financing of LTC | National Report Denmark 1 Key contextual factors The background to how long-term care for older people in Denmark is governed is the major sea change in housing and care for older people that began in the 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • Greene Memorial Hospital Community Health Needs Assessment Greene Memorial Hospital Community Health Needs Assessment 2013
    2013 Greene Memorial Hospital Community Health Needs Assessment Greene Memorial Hospital Community Health Needs Assessment 2013 Table of Contents Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 How to Read This Report .......................................................................................................................... 1 Definition of the Community Served ........................................................................................................ 2 Consulting Persons and Organizations ..................................................................................................... 2 Demographics of the Community ................................................................................................................. 3 Characteristics of the Population .............................................................................................................. 3 Health Care Facilities and Resources within the Community ....................................................................... 5 Hospital ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Clinics .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MASS CASUALTY TRAUMA TRIAGE PARADIGMS and PITFALLS July 2019
    1 Mass Casualty Trauma Triage - Paradigms and Pitfalls EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Emergency medical services (EMS) providers arrive on the scene of a mass casualty incident (MCI) and implement triage, moving green patients to a single area and grouping red and yellow patients using triage tape or tags. Patients are then transported to local hospitals according to their priority group. Tagged patients arrive at the hospital and are assessed and treated according to their priority. Though this triage process may not exactly describe your agency’s system, this traditional approach to MCIs is the model that has been used to train American EMS As a nation, we’ve got a lot providers for decades. Unfortunately—especially in of trailers with backboards mass violence incidents involving patients with time- and colored tape out there critical injuries and ongoing threats to responders and patients—this model may not be feasible and may result and that’s not what the focus in mis-triage and avoidable, outcome-altering delays of mass casualty response is in care. Further, many hospitals have not trained or about anymore. exercised triage or re-triage of exceedingly large numbers of patients, nor practiced a formalized secondary triage Dr. Edward Racht process that prioritizes patients for operative intervention American Medical Response or transfer to other facilities. The focus of this paper is to alert EMS medical directors and EMS systems planners and hospital emergency planners to key differences between “conventional” MCIs and mass violence events when: • the scene is dynamic, • the number of patients far exceeds usual resources; and • usual triage and treatment paradigms may fail.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Health Records: a Global Perspective
    Electronic Health Records: A Global Perspective Second Edition Part I A Work Product of the HIMSS Enterprise Systems Steering Committee and the Global Enterprise Task Force August, 2010 © 2010 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Global Enterprise Task Force Chair, Steve Arnold, MD, MS, MBA, Co-Chair, Walter W. Wieners, CPE FHIMSS President & CEO Managing Principal Healthcare Consultants International Walter W. Wieners Consulting Lagrangeville, New York Sausalito, California Global Enterprise Task Force Members Contributors to the White Paper Dorothea LaChon Abraham, PhD Belinda Eliahu Assistant Professor Director of Marketing Mason School of Business dbMotion Ltd. College of William & Mary Israel Visiting Assistant Professor Keio University Guilherme S. Hummel Japan International Consultant and Researcher Brazil Marion J. Ball, EdD, FHIMSS, FCHIME Pramod Jacob Fellow Chief Consultant IBM Center for Healthcare Management DJ Health-Tech. Professor Emeritus Goa, India Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Baltimore, Maryland Selene Kepila Chairman and Executive Director Dr. Ngai Tseung Cheung CareData Solutions Corporation Chief Medical Informatics Officer Hong Kong Hospital Authority Georg Heidenreich Hong Kong Manager, Healthcare IT Siemens AG Healthcare Laurent Debenedetti Erlangen, Germany Direction generale Relations internationals Susan J. Hyatt, BSc (PT), MBA Sante Government President & CEO France HYATTDIO INC Oakville, Ontario, Canada Dr. Harald Deutsch Vice President Healthcare EMEA Computer Sciences Corporation Germany ©2010 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). 2 Gary M. Klein, MD, MPH, MBA Erik Pupo Former Consultant & Chief Medical Senior Enterprise Architect Information Officer Pearson Blueprint Technologies Department of Homeland Security Vienna, Virginia Washington, DC Current President Chong Yoke Sin The American Academy of Disaster Chief Executive Officer Medicine Singapore MOH Holdings Singapore Susheel Ladwa Practice Leader, Healthcare and Life Sanjay P.
    [Show full text]
  • Same Difference a Comparison of International Health Systems England • U.S
    SAME DIFFERENCE A COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS ENGLAND • U.S. • GERMANY INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................01 HEALTHCARE IN ENGLAND, THE U.S. AND GERMANY ....................................................02 THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 08 COMMISSIONING RESPONSES .................................................................................. 13 CASE STUDY: UK........................................................................................................ 15 CHANGING CARE MODELS: PROVIDERS .......................................................... 16 CASE STUDY: U.S. .............................................................................................20 CHANGING CARE MODELS: PRIMARY CARE ............................................22 TECHNOLOGY ..........................................................................................24 CASE STUDY: GERMANY .....................................................................26 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................28 UNDERSTANDING THE TERMS WE USE ...................................30 REFERENCES ............................................................................ 31 PRODUCED BY THE BDO CENTRE FOR GLOBAL HEALTHCARE EXCELLENCE & INNOVATION NOVEMBER 2016 A COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS | SAME DIFFERENCE 01 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Dental-Service-Spec-Prisons-2020.Pdf
    Service specification Dental service for prisons in England 2020 NHS England and NHS Improvement 1 NHS England and NHS Improvement Publishing Approval Reference: 001181 Contents 1. How to use this document ................................................................................... 3 2. The model ............................................................................................................ 4 3. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 4. Guiding principles ................................................................................................ 8 5. Core service delivery ......................................................................................... 11 5.1 Service vision .................................................................................................. 11 5.2 Days and hours of operation ........................................................................... 13 5.3 Service availability ....................................................................................... 13 5.4 Inclusion criteria .......................................................................................... 14 5.5 Exclusion criteria ......................................................................................... 14 5.6 Equivalence for services in prisons ............................................................. 14 5.7 Setting ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]