OBJECTIVES: Measuring and monitoring health system performance is important albeit controversial. Technical, logistic and financial challenges are formidable. We introduced a system of measurement, which we call Q, to measure the quality of hospital clinical performance across a range of facilities. This paper describes how Q was developed, implemented in hospitals in the Philippines and how it compares with typical measures. METHODS: Q consists of measures of clinical performance, patient satisfaction and volume of physician services. We evaluate Q using experimental data from the Quality Improvement Demonstration Study (QIDS), a randomized policy experiment. We determined its responsiveness over time and to changes in structural measures such as staffing and supplies. We also examined the operational costs of implementing Q. RESULTS: Q was sustainable, minimally disruptive and readily grafted into existing routines in 30 hospitals in 10 provinces semi-annually for a period of 2(1/2) years. We found Q to be more responsive to immediate impacts of policy change than standard structural measures. The operational costs totalled USD2133 or USD305 per assessment per site. CONCLUSION: Q appears to be an achievable assessment tool that is a comprehensive and responsive measure of system level quality at a limited cost in resource-poor settings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Measuring and monitoring health system performance is important albeit controversial. Technical, logistic and financial challenges are formidable. We introduced a system of measurement, which we call Q, to measure the quality of hospital clinical performance across a range of facilities. This paper describes how Q was developed, implemented in hospitals in the Philippines and how it compares with typical measures. METHODS: Q consists of measures of clinical performance, patient satisfaction and volume of physician services. We evaluate Q using experimental data from the Quality Improvement Demonstration Study (QIDS), a randomized policy experiment. We determined its responsiveness over time and to changes in structural measures such as staffing and supplies. We also examined the operational costs of implementing Q. RESULTS: Q was sustainable, minimally disruptive and readily grafted into existing routines in 30 hospitals in 10 provinces semi-annually for a period of 2(1/2) years. We found Q to be more responsive to immediate impacts of policy change than standard structural measures. The operational costs totalled USD2133 or USD305 per assessment per site. CONCLUSION: Q appears to be an achievable assessment tool that is a comprehensive and responsive measure of system level quality at a limited cost in resource-poor settings.
Authors: C Almeida; P Braveman; M R Gold; C L Szwarcwald; J M Ribeiro; A Miglionico; J S Millar; S Porto; N R Costa; V O Rubio; M Segall; B Starfield; C Travassos; C Travessos; A Uga; J Valente; F Viacava Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-05-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John W Peabody; Jeff Luck; Peter Glassman; Sharad Jain; Joyce Hansen; Maureen Spell; Martin Lee Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: John W Peabody; Enrico de Belen; Jeffrey R Dahlen; Maria Czarina Acelajado; Mary T Tran; David R Paculdo Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-07-07
Authors: Stephen Ntoburi; Andrew Hutchings; Colin Sanderson; James Carpenter; Martin Weber; Mike English Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: John Peabody; Paul Billings; Czarlota Valdenor; Zach Demko; Solomon Moshkevich; David Paculdo; Mary Tran Journal: Int J Nephrol Date: 2019-05-13
Authors: John W Peabody; Riti Shimkhada; Stella Quimbo; Orville Solon; Xylee Javier; Charles McCulloch Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 3.547