Pamela Wronski1, Jan Koetsenruijter2, Dominik Ose2,3, Jan Paulus2, Joachim Szecsenyi2, Michel Wensing2. 1. Department of General Practice & Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. pamela.wronski@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of General Practice & Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Present address: Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, 375 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stakeholders in the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg agreed upon the central aims for healthcare planning. These include a focus on geographical districts; a comprehensive, cross-sectoral perspective on healthcare needs and services; and use of regional data for healthcare planning. Therefore, healthcare data at district level is needed. Nevertheless, decision makers face the challenge to make a selection from numerous indicators and frameworks, which all have limitations or do not well apply to the targeted setting. The aim of this study was to identify district level indicators to be used in Baden-Wuerttemberg for the purpose of cross-sectoral and needs-based healthcare planning involving stakeholders of the health system. METHODS: A conceptual framework for indicators was developed. A structured search for indicators identified 374 potential indicators in indicator sets of German and international institutions and agencies (n = 211), clinical practice guidelines (n = 50), data bases (n = 35), indicator databases (n = 25), published literature (n = 35), and other sources (n = 18). These indicators were categorised according to the developed framework dimensions. In an online survey, institutions of various stakeholders were invited to assess the relevance of these indicators from December 2016 until January 2017. Indicators were selected in terms of a median value of the assessed relevance. RESULTS: 22 institutions selected 212 indicators for the five dimensions non-medical determinants of health (20 indicators), health status (25), utilisation of the health system (34), health system performance (87), and healthcare provision (46). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders assessed a large number of indicators as relevant for use in healthcare planning on district level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: Stakeholders in the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg agreed upon the central aims for healthcare planning. These include a focus on geographical districts; a comprehensive, cross-sectoral perspective on healthcare needs and services; and use of regional data for healthcare planning. Therefore, healthcare data at district level is needed. Nevertheless, decision makers face the challenge to make a selection from numerous indicators and frameworks, which all have limitations or do not well apply to the targeted setting. The aim of this study was to identify district level indicators to be used in Baden-Wuerttemberg for the purpose of cross-sectoral and needs-based healthcare planning involving stakeholders of the health system. METHODS: A conceptual framework for indicators was developed. A structured search for indicators identified 374 potential indicators in indicator sets of German and international institutions and agencies (n = 211), clinical practice guidelines (n = 50), data bases (n = 35), indicator databases (n = 25), published literature (n = 35), and other sources (n = 18). These indicators were categorised according to the developed framework dimensions. In an online survey, institutions of various stakeholders were invited to assess the relevance of these indicators from December 2016 until January 2017. Indicators were selected in terms of a median value of the assessed relevance. RESULTS: 22 institutions selected 212 indicators for the five dimensions non-medical determinants of health (20 indicators), health status (25), utilisation of the health system (34), health system performance (87), and healthcare provision (46). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders assessed a large number of indicators as relevant for use in healthcare planning on district level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community health; Cross-sectoral healthcare; Delivery of health care; Germany; Health services administration
Authors: F Carinci; K Van Gool; J Mainz; J Veillard; E C Pichora; J M Januel; I Arispe; S M Kim; N S Klazinga Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Ashley N Corallo; Ruth Croxford; David C Goodman; Elisabeth L Bryan; Divya Srivastava; Therese A Stukel Journal: Health Policy Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Jeanette Bahr; Neeltje van den Berg; Klaus Kraywinkel; Ulrike Stentzel; Franziska Radicke; Walter Baumann; Wolfgang Hoffmann Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 0.628