INTRODUCTION: Performance measurement has been recognized as key to transforming primary care (PC). Yet, performance reporting in PC lags behind even though high-performing PC is foundational to an effective and efficient health care system. OBJECTIVES: We used administrative data from three Canadian provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia, to: 1) identify and develop a core set of PC performance indicators using administrative data and 2) examine their ability to capture PC performance. METHODS: Administrative data used included Physician Billings, Discharge Abstract Database, the National Ambulatory Care and Reporting System database, Census and Vital Statistics. Indicators were compiled based on a literature review of PC indicators previously developed with administrative data available in Canada (n=158). We engaged in iterative discussions to assess data conformity, completeness, and plausibility of results in all jurisdictions. Challenges to creating comparable algorithms were examined through content analysis and research team discussions, which included clinicians, analysts, and health services researchers familiar with PC. RESULTS: Our final list included 21 PC performance indicators pertaining to 1) technical care (n=4), 2) continuity of care (n=6), and 3) health services utilization (n=11). Establishing comparable algorithms across provinces was possible though time intensive. A major challenge was inconsistent data elements. Ease of data access, and a deep understanding of the data and practice context, was essential for selecting the most appropriate data elements. CONCLUSIONS: This project is unique in creating algorithms to measure PC performance across provinces. It was essential to balance internal validity of the indicators within a province and external validity across provinces. The intuitive desire of having the exact same coding across provinces was infeasible due to lack of standardized PC data. Rather, a context-tailored definition was developed for each jurisdiction. This work serves as an example for developing comparable PC performance indicators across different provincial/territorial jurisdictions.
INTRODUCTION: Performance measurement has been recognized as key to transforming primary care (PC). Yet, performance reporting in PC lags behind even though high-performing PC is foundational to an effective and efficient health care system. OBJECTIVES: We used administrative data from three Canadian provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia, to: 1) identify and develop a core set of PC performance indicators using administrative data and 2) examine their ability to capture PC performance. METHODS: Administrative data used included Physician Billings, Discharge Abstract Database, the National Ambulatory Care and Reporting System database, Census and Vital Statistics. Indicators were compiled based on a literature review of PC indicators previously developed with administrative data available in Canada (n=158). We engaged in iterative discussions to assess data conformity, completeness, and plausibility of results in all jurisdictions. Challenges to creating comparable algorithms were examined through content analysis and research team discussions, which included clinicians, analysts, and health services researchers familiar with PC. RESULTS: Our final list included 21 PC performance indicators pertaining to 1) technical care (n=4), 2) continuity of care (n=6), and 3) health services utilization (n=11). Establishing comparable algorithms across provinces was possible though time intensive. A major challenge was inconsistent data elements. Ease of data access, and a deep understanding of the data and practice context, was essential for selecting the most appropriate data elements. CONCLUSIONS: This project is unique in creating algorithms to measure PC performance across provinces. It was essential to balance internal validity of the indicators within a province and external validity across provinces. The intuitive desire of having the exact same coding across provinces was infeasible due to lack of standardized PC data. Rather, a context-tailored definition was developed for each jurisdiction. This work serves as an example for developing comparable PC performance indicators across different provincial/territorial jurisdictions.
Authors: Carl van Walraven; Irfan A Dhalla; Chaim Bell; Edward Etchells; Ian G Stiell; Kelly Zarnke; Peter C Austin; Alan J Forster Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Wayne A Psek; Rebecca A Stametz; Lisa D Bailey-Davis; Daniel Davis; Jonathan Darer; William A Faucett; Debra L Henninger; Dorothy C Sellers; Gloria Gerrity Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2015-03-10