A systematic review of health care efficiency measures.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hussey PS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2699907 | biostudies-other | 2009 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
A systematic review of health care efficiency measures.
Hussey Peter S PS de Vries Han H Romley John J Wang Margaret C MC Chen Susan S SS Shekelle Paul G PG McGlynn Elizabeth A EA
Health services research 20090128 3
<h4>Objective</h4>To review and characterize existing health care efficiency measures in order to facilitate a common understanding about the adequacy of these methods.<h4>Data sources</h4>Review of the MedLine and EconLit databases for articles published from 1990 to 2008, as well as search of the "gray" literature for additional measures developed by private organizations.<h4>Study design</h4>We performed a systematic review for existing efficiency measures. We classified the efficiency measur ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is a considerable amount of research showing an association between continuity of care and improved health outcomes. However, the methods used in most studies examine only the pattern of interactions between patients and clinicians through administrative measures of continuity. The patient experience of continuity can also be measured by using patient reported experience measures. Unlike administrative measures, these can allow elements of continuity such as the presence of information or how joined up care is between providers to be measured. Patient experienced continuity is a marker of healthcare quality in its own right. However, it is unclear if, like administrative measures, patient reported continuity is also linked to positive health outcomes.MethodsCohort and interventional studies that examined the relationship between patient reported continuity of care and a health outcome were eligible for inclusion. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched in April 2021. Citation searching of published continuity measures was also performed. QUIP and Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. A box-score method was used for study synthesis.ResultsNineteen studies were eligible for inclusion. 15 studies measured continuity using a validated, multifactorial questionnaire or the continuity/co-ordination subscale of another instrument. Two studies placed patients into discrete groups of continuity based on pre-defined questions, one used a bespoke questionnaire, one calculated an administrative measure of continuity using patient reported data. Outcome measures examined were quality of life (n = 11), self-reported health status (n = 8), emergency department use or hospitalisation (n = 7), indicators of function or wellbeing (n = 6), mortality (n = 4) and physiological measures (n = 2). Analysis was limited by the relatively small number of hetrogenous studies. The majority of studies showed a link between at least one measure of continuity and one health outcome.ConclusionWhilst there is emerging evidence of a link between patient reported continuity and several outcomes, the evidence is not as strong as that for administrative measures of continuity. This may be because administrative measures record something different to patient reported measures, or that studies using patient reported measures are smaller and less able to detect smaller effects. Future research should use larger sample sizes to clarify if a link does exist and what the potential mechanisms underlying such a link could be. When measuring continuity, researchers and health system administrators should carefully consider what type of continuity measure is most appropriate.
| S-EPMC11331683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The provision of health-care services is dependent on the effective and efficient functioning of various components of a health-care system. It is therefore important to evaluate the functioning of these various components. Hence, the aim of this study was to review studies on health-care facilities efficiency in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) with respect to the methodologies used as well as outcomes and factors influencing efficiency. Methods:The review was conducted through a comprehensive search of electronic databases which included PubMed, Web of science, academic search complete via EBSCOhost, Science Direct, and Google scholar. A search was also conducted by looking into citations in the reference list of selected articles and through gray literature. Studies were screened by examining their titles, abstracts, and full-text based on stated inclusion and exclusion criteria. The concurrent screening and data extraction were conducted by the two authors. Results:A total of 40 studies were shortlisted for the review. The majority (90.0%) of the studies employed the data envelopment analysis technique for their efficiency measurements. The input and output variables utilized by most of the studies were predominantly human resources and health-related services respectively. The outcome from majority of the studies showed that less than 40% of the studied facilities were efficient. The leading influencing factors reported by the studies were catchment population, facility ownership, and location. Conclusions:The review showed that there was a marked degree of inefficiency across the health-care facilities. Consequently, due to severe resource constraints facing SSA, there is a need to determine how to use the available resources optimally to improve health systems performance.
| S-EPMC7218466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This systematic review aimed to (a) provide an overview of existing quality measures in the field of oral health care, and to (b) evaluate the scientific soundness and applicability of these quality measures. METHODS:A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via OVID) and LILACS (via BIREME). The search was restricted to articles published between 2002 and 2018. Publications reporting on the development process or clinimetric properties of oral health care quality measures for outpatient oral health care in dental practices were included. The identified publications reporting on oral health care quality measures were critically appraised with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation 2.0 (AIRE 2.0) instrument to evaluate the soundness and applicability of the measures. RESULTS:The search strategy resulted in 2541 unique and potentially relevant articles. In total, 24 publications were included yielding 215 quality measures. The critical appraisal showed a large variation in the quality of the included publications (AIRE scores ranging from 38 to 78 out of 80 possible points). The majority of measures (n = 71) referred to treatment and preventive services. Comparably, few measures referred to the domain patient safety (n = 3). The development process of measures often exhibited a lack of involvement of patients and dental professionals. Few projects reported on the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 3) of the measures. Four projects piloted the measures for implementation in practice. CONCLUSIONS:This systematic review provides an overview of the status quo with respect to existing quality measures in oral health care. Potential opportunities include the piloting and testing of quality measures and the establishment of suitable information systems that allow the provision of transparent routine feedback on the quality of oral health care.
| S-EPMC7379624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite more than a decade of research on hospitalists and their performance, disagreement still exists regarding whether and how hospital-based physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery. This systematic review summarizes the findings from 65 comparative evaluations to determine whether hospitalists provide a higher quality of inpatient care relative to traditional inpatient physicians who maintain hospital privileges with concurrent outpatient practices.MethodsArticles on hospitalist performance published between January 1996 and December 2010 were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and a hand-search of reference lists, key journals and editorials. Comparative evaluations presenting original, quantitative data on processes, efficiency or clinical outcome measures of care between hospitalists, community-based physicians and traditional academic attending physicians were included (n = 65). After proposing a conceptual framework for evaluating inpatient physician performance, major findings on quality are summarized according to their percentage change, direction and statistical significance.ResultsThe majority of reviewed articles demonstrated that hospitalists are efficient providers of inpatient care on the basis of reductions in their patients' average length of stay (69%) and total hospital costs (70%); however, the clinical quality of hospitalist care appears to be comparable to that provided by their colleagues. The methodological quality of hospitalist evaluations remains a concern and has not improved over time. Persistent issues include insufficient reporting of source or sample populations (n = 30), patients lost to follow-up (n = 42) and estimates of effect or random variability (n = 35); inappropriate use of statistical tests (n = 55); and failure to adjust for established confounders (n = 37).ConclusionsFuture research should include an expanded focus on the specific structures of care that differentiate hospitalists from other inpatient physician groups as well as the development of better conceptual and statistical models that identify and measure underlying mechanisms driving provider-outcome associations in quality.
| S-EPMC3123228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs people are living longer with higher incidences of long-term health conditions, there is a move towards greater integration of care, including integration of health and social care services. Integrated care needs to be comprehensively and systematically evaluated if it is to be implemented widely. We performed a systematic review of reviews to identify measures which have been used to assess integrated care across health and social care services for people living with long-term health conditions.MethodsFour electronic databases (PUBMED; MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cochrane library of systematic reviews) were searched in August 2018 for relevant reviews evaluating the integration of health and social care between 1998 and 2018. Articles were assessed according to apriori eligibility criteria. A data extraction form was utilised to collate the identified measures into five categories.ResultsOf the 18 articles included, system outcomes and process measures were most frequently identified (15 articles each). Patient or carer reported outcomes were identified in 13 articles while health outcomes were reported in 12 articles. Structural measures were reported in nine articles. Challenges to measuring integration included the identification of a wide range of potential impacts of integration, difficulties in comparing findings due to differences in study design and heterogeneity of types of outcomes, and a need for appropriate, robust measurement tools.ConclusionsOur review revealed no shortage of measures for assessing the structures, processes and outcomes of integrated care. The very large number of available measures and infrequent use of any common set make comparisons between schemes more difficult. The promotion of core measurement sets and stakeholder consultation would advance measurement in this area.
| S-EPMC7183623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify approaches to presenting cost and resource use measures that support consumers in selecting high-value hospitals. DATA SOURCES:Survey data were collected from U.S. employees of Analog Devices (n = 420). STUDY DESIGN:In two online experiments, participants viewed comparative data on four hospitals. In one experiment, participants were randomized to view one of five versions of the same comparative cost data, and in the other experiment they viewed different versions of the same readmissions data. Bivariate and multivariate analyses examined whether presentation approach was related to selecting the high-value hospital. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Consumers were approximately 16 percentage points more likely to select a high-value hospital when cost data were presented using actual dollar amounts or using the word "affordable" to describe low-cost hospitals, compared to when the Hospital Compare spending ratio was used. Consumers were 33 points more likely to select the highest performing hospital when readmission performance was shown using word icons rather than percentages. CONCLUSIONS:Presenting cost and resource use measures effectively to consumers is challenging. This study suggests using actual dollar amounts for cost, but presenting performance on readmissions using evaluative symbols.
| S-EPMC6056584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Workplace violence in the health care setting is a social problem of great interest both at the health care level and in research in recent decades. The most common type of violence is the one coming from the user towards the professional. Although the bibliography includes multiple preventive actions focused on working with professionals, there are hardly any studies that explore and collect actions aimed at the user. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of the literature to provide an overview of the current evidence. Specifically, it aims to describe the various user-directed strategies or interventions aimed at reducing workplace violence experienced by professionals within the healthcare sector. A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), methodology of publications published up to December 2022 in the main databases. Studies that met the previously established eligibility criteria were identified. A peer review of the risk of bias was performed and the data were extracted from a previously elaborated template. The search yielded 5231 articles of which 11 were finally included in the review. Of these, 3 had a quantitative design, 7 had a qualitative design and one had a combined design. Of these, 38 measures or actions aimed at the user were compiled, grouped into four blocks according to the attitudinal objective pursued: Improvement of communication and creation of links, involvement of the user in joint decisions with the staff, informing and training the user, and other independent proposals. This study makes it possible to explore actions aimed at users with the objective of reducing violence towards health professionals. It collects and makes available to the scientific community a set of measures aimed at making a change of attitude in the perpetrator themselves, with the involvement of the perpetrator in the health system. This set of collected measures provides researchers with a basis to be taken into account for the implementation of future prevention plans according to the new multicomponent prevention models and with the involvement of the perpetrator themselves.
| S-EPMC10558594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThere is a growing acceptance of the need for routine implementation of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in health care. Rheumatology patients, as frequent and long-term users of care, stand to benefit from collection of experience-related data. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify and critically appraise the development and psychometric validation of PREMs in rheumatology.MethodsSix databases were searched systematically from inception to 14 December 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Cochrane and Google Scholar. We included articles in English that described the use or development of PREMs, with results of psychometric testing, in an adult outpatient rheumatology context. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021233819). Articles were appraised using the COnsensus Based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) (i) Risk of Bias checklist and (ii) criteria for good measurement properties.ResultsThe search yielded 3809 publications, and six studies met inclusion criteria. All the included studies on PREM development fulfilled COSMIN standards for 'doubtful' or 'inadequate' quality of instrument development. One study fulfilled a 'sufficient' rating for content validity, and the remainder fulfilled 'inconsistent' ratings. During validity testing, studies fulfilled between one and four of the eight COSMIN checklist criteria for good measurement properties.ConclusionMethodological concerns regarding instrument development and validation limit the generalizability of the existing six validated PREMs in use in rheumatology contexts. There is a need for further well-designed studies to validate existing and new PREMs in this area.
| S-EPMC8578687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care in England is facing increasing pressure due to the increasing number and complexity of consultations and the declining number of doctors per head of population. The improvement of primary care efficiency and productivity should be a priority, to ensure that future investments in the medical workforce can cope with the increasingly large and complex demand for care.ObjectivesThis paper presents a systematic literature review of studies that define or measure efficiency in primary care in high-income settings. The review of the existing definitions of primary care efficiency and their limitations will inform future research on the measurement of efficiency in primary care in England and its determinants.MethodsLiterature searches were performed on Embase, Medline, and EconLit in January 2020. The records that passed the screening were reviewed in full text, and data on the study settings, the efficiency definition, and the efficiency analysis were extracted.ResultsOf the 2590 non-duplicate records retrieved from the searches, 38 papers were included in the analysis. The volume of the literature on primary care efficiency has evolved significantly from the 1980s, with the majority of the published studies focussing on European health systems. The setting most often analysed was primary care centres. Output was usually expressed using measures of primary care utilisation, with or without quality adjustments. Reference to the health outcomes achieved was, however, limited. Inputs were more commonly expressed in labour terms, while the exogenous variables related either to the characteristics of the patient population or the organisation of primary care. While all studies included an analysis of technical efficiency, consideration of allocative or cost efficiency or the determinants of productivity (e.g. technological change, skill mix) was rare.ConclusionsThe main limitations that future research on primary care efficiency should address relate to the definition of output. Current approaches to measure the impact on health and the multiple dimensions of output are not sufficient to represent the valued output of primary care. In light of the recent changes in the model of primary care delivery in England, future research should also investigate the impact of technological change on productivity and the scope for substitution across staff roles.
| S-EPMC8337146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigitalization is not fully implemented in clinical practice, and several factors have been identified as possible barriers, including the competencies of health care professionals. However, no summary of the available evidence has been provided to date to depict digital health competencies that have been investigated among health care professionals, the tools used in assessing such competencies, and the effective interventions to improve them.ObjectiveThis review aims to summarize digital health competencies investigated to date and the tools used to assess them among health care professionals.MethodsA systematic review based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist was performed. The MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were accessed up to September 4, 2021. Studies assessing digital health competencies with quantitative designs, targeting health care professionals, and written in English were included. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.ResultsA total of 26 studies, published from 1999 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria, and the majority were cross sectional in design, while only 2 were experimental study designs. Most studies were assessed with moderate to low methodological quality; 4 categories and 9 subcategories of investigated digital health competencies have been identified. The most investigated category was "Self-rated competencies," followed by "Psychological and emotional aspects toward digital technologies," "Use of digital technologies," and "Knowledge about digital technologies." In 35% (9/26) of the studies, a previously validated tool was used to measure the competencies assessed, while others developed ad hoc questionnaires.ConclusionsMainly descriptive studies with issues regarding methodology quality have been produced to date investigating 4 main categories of digital health competencies mostly with nonvalidated tools. Competencies investigated might be considered while designing curricula for undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education processes, whereas the methodological lacks detected might be addressed with future research. There is a need to expand research on psychological and emotional elements and the ability to use digital technology to self-learn and teach others.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021282775; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282775.
| S-EPMC9437781 | biostudies-literature