Improving performance intelligence for governing an integrated health and social care delivery network: a case study on the Amsterdam Noord district.

BACKGROUND: A guiding principle of a successful integrated health and social care delivery network is to establish a governance approach based on learning, grounded in a data and knowledge infrastructure. The 'Krijtmolen Alliantie' is a network of health and social care providers with the ambition to realize such a performance intelligence driven governance model in line with the Triple Aim. This study seeks to identify what performance intelligence is available and how it can be improved. METHODS: This case study was conducted in the district of Amsterdam Noord, the Netherlands, and employed 23 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in health and social care, a feasibility analysis of available administrative data, and a reflection meeting with board members of the 'Krijtmolen Alliantie'. Information needs for performance intelligence by the stakeholders were mapped and a data landscape of the district covered by the network was drafted. Finally, in the reflection meeting with board members of the 'Krijtmolen Alliantie' the information needs and data landscape were aligned with governing needs, resulting in priority domains around which to strengthen the data infrastructure for governance of the integrated health and social care delivery network. RESULTS: The 'Krijtmolen Alliantie' encompasses a network of providers with a diverse range of catchment areas. There are indicators on population health and welfare, however they have limited actionability for providers due to a misalignment with their respective catchment areas. There is a barrier in data exchange between health and social care providers. It is difficult to construct one indicator for per capita cost in the Dutch health data infrastructure as health and social care are subdivided in financing siloes. Priority domains for improvement of performance intelligence for the 'Krijtmolen Alliantie' are: 1) Per capita and per patient cost data integration that would allow combined accountability through aligning financial incentives to facilitate integrated care, and 2) combined patient experience and outcome measures to reflect network quality of care and patient experience performance. CONCLUSION: Available performance intelligence lacks actionability for the governance of integrated care networks. Our recommendation is to align performance intelligence with the regional governance responsibilities of stakeholders for health and social care delivery.

The current and potential uses of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) data for primary health care performance measurement in the Canadian context: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) are a rich data source to measure and improve quality of care. As Canadian primary health care (PHC) EMRs mature, there is increasing potential use of EMR data for performance measurement. This study identifies and describes current uses of EMR data for performance measurement and considerations to further its potential in the Canadian context. METHODS: We applied a qualitative case study design and descriptive assessment in three phases, consulting multiple data sources including scientific and grey literature, system leaders (n = 41), and clinician/researchers (n = 20). Phases included a multimethod approach to identify initiatives using EMR data for performance measurement across Canadian jurisdictions; in-depth review of current initiatives identified from a healthcare performance intelligence lens; and triangulation and thematic analysis across data sources to explore considerations for advancing performance measurement uses of EMR data in the Canadian context. RESULTS: Six initiatives of EMR data use for performance measurement were identified: one multi-jurisdictional; five jurisdiction-specific in the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario. EMR data uses were predominately for micro-level PHC physician and team performance improvement, with some use for meso-level organization/network-wide improvement. Indicator sets varied in number, though shared emphasis on chronic disease management and prevention/screening and to a lesser extent medication management. Key considerations for governing, resourcing and implementing EMR data for performance measurement were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of EMR data use for performance measurement varies across Canada. To further its potential, pan-Canadian data and privacy standards, performance intelligence competencies and renewed core PHC indicators should be prioritized. Experiences across countries, coupled with increasing momentum for performance measurement using real-world data, should be leveraged to avoid unnecessarily slow progress in Canada and abroad.

Patients Place More of an Emphasis on Physical Recovery Than Return to Work or Financial Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare models aim to incentivize healthcare providers to offer interventions that address determinants of health. Understanding patient priorities for physical and socioeconomic recovery after injury can help determine which services and resources are most useful to patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do trauma patients consistently identify a specific aspect/domain of recovery as being most important at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after an injury? (2) Does the relative importance of those domains change within the first year after injury? (3) Are differences in priorities greater between patients than for a given patient over time? (4) Are different recovery priorities associated with identifiable biopsychosocial factors? METHODS: Between June 2018 and December 2018, 504 adult patients with fractures of the extremities or pelvis were surgically treated at the study site. For this prospective longitudinal study, we purposefully sampled patients from 6 of the 12 orthopaedic attendings' postoperative clinics. The participating surgeons surgically treated 243 adult patients with fractures of the extremities or pelvis. Five percent (11 of 243) of patients met inclusion criteria but missed their appointments during the 6-week recruitment window and could not be consented. We excluded 4% (9 of 243) of patients with a traumatic brain injury, 1% (2) of patients with a spinal cord injury, and 5% (12) of non-English-speaking patients (4% Spanish speaking [10]; 1% other languages [2]). Eighty-six percent of eligible patients (209 of 243) were approached for consent, and 5% (11 of 209) of those patients refused to participate. All remaining 198 patients consented and completed the baseline survey; 83% (164 of 198 patients) completed at least 6 months of follow-up, and 68% (134 of 198 patients) completed the 12-month assessment. The study participants' mean age was 44 ± 17 years, and 63% (125 of 198) were men. The primary outcome was the patient's recovery priorities, assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after fracture using a discrete choice experiment. Discrete choice experiments are a well-established method for eliciting decisional preferences. In this technique, respondents are presented with a series of hypothetical scenarios, described by a set of plausible attributes or outcomes, and asked to select their preferred scenario. We used hierarchical Bayesian modeling to calculate individual-level estimates of the relative importance of physical recovery, work-related recovery, and disability benefits, based on the discrete choice experiment responses. The hierarchical Bayesian model improves upon more commonly used regression techniques by accounting for the observed response patterns of individual patients and the sequence of scenarios presented in the discrete choice experiment when calculating the model estimates. We computed the coefficient of variation for the three recovery domains and compared the between-patient versus within-patient differences using asymptotic tests. Separate prognostic models were fit for each of the study's three recovery domains to assess marginal changes in the importance of the recovery domain based on patient characteristics and factors that remained constant over the study (such as sex or preinjury work status) and patient characteristics and factors that varied over the study (including current work status or patient-reported health status). We previously published the 6-week results. This paper expands upon the prior publication to evaluate longitudinal changes in patient recovery priorities. RESULTS: Physical recovery was the respondents' main priority at all three timepoints, representing 60% ± 9% of their overall concern. Work-related recovery and access to disability benefits were of secondary importance and were associated with 27% ± 6% and 13% ± 7% of the patients' concern, respectively. The patients' concern for physical recovery was 6% (95% CrI 4% to 7%) higher at 12 months after fracture that at 6 weeks postfracture. The mean concern for work-related recovery increased by 7% (95% CrI 6% to 8%) from 6 weeks to 6 months after injury. The mean importance of disability benefits increased by 2% (95% CrI 1% to 4%) from 6 weeks to 6 months and remained 2% higher (95% CrI 0% to 3%) at 12 months after the injury. Differences in priorities were greater within a given patient over time than between patients as measured using the coefficient of variation (physical recovery [245% versus 7%; p < 0.001], work-related recovery [678% versus 12%; p < 0.001], and disability benefits [620% versus 33%; p < 0.001]. There was limited evidence that biopsychosocial factors were associated with variation in recovery priorities. Patients' concern for physical recovery was 2% higher for every 10-point increase in their Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) physical health status score (95% CrI 1% to 3%). A 10-point increase in the patient's PROMIS mental health status score was associated with a 1% increase in concern for work-related recovery (95% CrI 0% to 2%). CONCLUSION: Work-related recovery and accessing disability benefits were a secondary concern compared with physical recovery in the 12 months after injury for patients with fractures. However, the importance of work-related recovery was elevated after the subacute phase. Priorities were highly variable within a given patient in the year after injury compared with between-patient differences. Given this variation, orthopaedic surgeons should consider assessing and reassessing the socioeconomic well-being of their patients throughout their continuum of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Engaging citizens in the development of a health system performance assessment framework: a case study in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: The launch in 2017 of the Irish 10-year reform programme Sláintecare represents a key commitment in the future of the health system. An important component of the programme was the development of a health system performance assessment (HSPA) framework. In 2019, the Department of Health of Ireland (DoH) and Health Service Executive (HSE) commissioned the technical support of researchers to develop an outcome-oriented HSPA framework which should reflect the shared priorities of multiple stakeholders, including citizens. This study describes the method applied in the Irish context and reflects on the added value of using a citizen panel in the development of an HSPA framework. METHODS: A panel of 15 citizens was convened, recruited by a third-party company using a sampling strategy to achieve a balanced mix representing the Irish society. Panellists received lay-language preparatory materials before the meeting. Panellists used a three-colour scheme to signal the importance of performance measures. An exit questionnaire was administered to understand how participants experienced being part of the panel. The citizen panel was the first in a series of three panels towards the development of the HSPA framework, followed by panels including representatives of the DoH and HSE, and representatives from professional associations and special interest groups. RESULTS: The citizen panel generated 249 health performance measures ranging across 13 domains. Top-ranking domains to the citizen panel (people-centredness, coordination of care, and coverage) were less prioritized by the other panels; domains less prioritized by the citizen panel, such as accessibility, responsiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness, were of higher priority in the other panels. Citizen panellists shared a similar understanding of what a citizen panel involves and described their experience at the panel as enjoyable, interesting, and informative. CONCLUSIONS: The priorities of the citizen panel were accounted for during all phases of developing the HSPA framework. This was possible by adopting an inclusive development process and by engaging citizens early on. Citizen engagement in HSPA development is essential for realizing citizen-driven healthcare system performance and generating trust and ownership in performance intelligence. Future research could expand the use of citizen panels to assess, monitor, and report on the performance of healthcare systems.

International comparison of pressure ulcer measures in long-term care facilities: Assessing the methodological robustness of 4 approaches to point prevalence measurement.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure ulcer indicators are among the most frequently used performance measures in long-term care settings. However, measurement systems vary and there is limited knowledge about the international comparability of different measurement systems. The aim of this analysis was to identify possible avenues for international comparisons of data on pressure ulcer prevalence among residents of long-term care facilities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis of the four point prevalence measurement systems programs used in 28 countries on three continents was performed. The criteria for the description and analysis were based on the scientific literature on criteria for indicator selection, on issues in international comparisons of data and on specific challenges of pressure ulcer measurements. RESULTS: The four measurement systems use a prevalence measure based on very similar numerator and denominator definitions. All four measurement systems also collect data on patient mobility. They differ in the pressure ulcer classifications used and the requirements for a head-to-toe resident examination. The regional or country representativeness of long-term care facilities also varies among the four measurement systems. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological differences among the point prevalence measurement systems are an important barrier to reliable comparisons of pressure ulcer prevalence data. The alignment of the methodologies may be improved by implementing changes to the study protocols, such as aligning the classification of pressure ulcers and requirements for a head-to-toe resident skin assessment. The effort required for each change varies. All these elements need to be considered by any initiative to facilitate international comparison and learning.

Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications.

BACKGROUND: Health Services Research findings (HSR) reported in scientific publications may become part of the decision-making process on healthcare. This study aimed to explore associations between researcher's individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors and the occurrence of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific HSR publications. METHODS: We employed a mixed-methods study design. We identified factors possibly contributing to QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions through a literature review, 14 semi-structured interviews with HSR institutional leaders, and 13 focus-groups amongst researchers. A survey corresponding with these factors was developed and shared with 172 authors of 116 scientific HSR publications produced by Dutch research institutes in 2016. We assessed the included publications for the occurrence of QRPs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify factors within individual, institutional, and environmental domains. Next, we conducted bivariate analyses using simple Poisson regression to explore factors' association with the number of QRPs in the assessed HSR publications. Factors related to QRPs with a p-value < .30 were included in four multivariate models tested through a multiple Poisson regression. RESULTS: In total, 78 (45%) participants completed the survey (51.3% first authors and 48.7% last authors). Twelve factors were included in the multivariate analyses. In all four multivariate models, a higher score of "pressure to create societal impact" (Exp B = 1.28, 95% CI [1.11, 1.47]), was associated with higher number of QRPs. Higher scores on "specific training" (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.77-0.94]) and "co-author conflict of interest" (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.75-0.97]) factors were associated with a lower number of QRPs. Stratification between first and last authors indicated different factors were related to the occurrence of QRPs for these groups. CONCLUSION: Experienced pressure to create societal impact is associated with more QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions in HSR publications. Specific training in reporting messages and conclusions and awareness of co-author conflict of interests are related to fewer QRPs. Our results should stimulate awareness within the field of HSR internationally on opportunities to better support reporting in scientific HSR publications.

Bending the quality curve.

With this paper, we initiate the Supplement on Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA). DUQuA is an at-scale, cross-sectional research programme examining the quality activities in 32 large hospitals across Australia. It is based on, with suitable modifications and extensions, the Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE) research programme, also published as a Supplement in this Journal, in 2014. First, we briefly discuss key data about Australia, the health of its population and its health system. Then, to provide context for the work, we discuss previous activities on the quality of care and improvement leading up to the DUQuA studies. Next, we present a selection of key interventional studies and policy and institutional initiatives to date. Finally, we conclude by outlining, in brief, the aims and scope of the articles that follow in the Supplement. This first article acts as a framing vehicle for the DUQuA studies as a whole. Aggregated, the series of papers collectively attempts an answer to the questions: what is the relationship between quality strategies, both hospital-wide and at department level? and what are the relationships between the way care is organised, and the actual quality of care as delivered? Papers in the Supplement deal with a multiplicity of issues including: how the DUQuA investigators made progress over time, what the results mean in context, the scales designed or modified along the way for measuring the quality of care, methodological considerations and provision of lessons learnt for the benefit of future researchers.

An expert-based mapping of healthcare system strategies to support rational drug prescribing in primary care across 13 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Irrational prescribing has received increasing attention among policy-makers to improve drug safety and effectiveness while avoiding economic waste. The policies intended to rationalise prescribing have been grouped by WHO under a taxonomy, classifying them into two types of strategies - (1) targeted approaches (micro level) and (2) system-oriented approaches (macro level). The extent to which countries implement strategies and the existing types is currently unknown. This paper explores the following research question via expert opinions: to what extent have European countries implemented strategies to support rational prescribing (targeted and system oriented) and what are the types implemented? METHODS: We assessed the available information on policies intended to promote rational prescribing. We used the WHO taxonomy to explore our research question as the basis for a standardised questionnaire. The data were collected between August 2018 and April 2019. The questionnaire consisted of questions that solicited the opinion of experts on the implementation of prescribing control mechanisms in primary care in their respective countries. Experts were identified through the literature and relevant networks. The questionnaire was sent to 17 identified country experts from 17 different countries; 15 responded and 13 were used in our analysis. Answers were validated through follow-up correspondence, interviews and presentation at an OECD meeting. RESULTS: Expert-reported data shows that all 13 countries included in our study have several mechanisms in place for enhancing rational prescribing in primary care. All approaches were reported to have been implemented in at least two countries. We identified two groups of countries, namely a small group of countries (n = 3) with fewer mechanisms in place and a larger group of countries (n = 10) with a large number of strategies with accompanying instruments at both the micro and macro levels. CONCLUSIONS: The data reported by the experts suggests that all 13 countries included in our study have several mechanisms in place for enhancing rational prescribing in primary care on both the micro and macro levels. With respect to the extent of mechanisms being in place, two groups of countries were identified. This initial mapping of strategies forms a basis for more in-depth research to be able to assess the impact of bundles of strategies on system and targeted level on rational drug prescribing in primary care in Europe.

Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to improve care delivery and are becoming part of routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to give an overview of PROM administration methods and their facilitators and barriers in breast cancer clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles from study inception to November 2017. Reference lists of screened reviews were also checked. After inclusion of relevant articles, data were extracted and appraised by 2 investigators. RESULTS: A total of 2311 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. Method and frequency of PROM collection varied between studies. The majority of studies described a promising effect of PROM collection on patients (adherence, symptom distress, quality of life, acceptability, and satisfaction), providers (willingness to comply, clinical decision making, symptom management), and care process or system outcomes (referrals, patient-provider communication, hospital visits). A limited number of facilitators and barriers were identified, primarily of a technical and behavioral nature. CONCLUSION: Although interpreting the impact of PROM collection in breast cancer care is challenging owing to considerations of synergistic (multicomponent) interventions and generalizability issues, this review found that systematic PROM collection has a promising impact on patients, providers, and care processes/ systems. Further standardization and reporting on method and frequency of PROM collection might help increase the effectiveness of PROM interventions and is warranted to enhance their overall impact.

Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-health) 2.0: from a scoring instrument to a critical appraisal tool.

BACKGROUND: Statistics are frequently used in health advocacy to attract attention, but are often misinterpreted. The Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) 1.0 was developed to support systematic assessment of the interpretation of figures on health and health care. This study aimed to test and evaluate the FIAT-Health 1.0 amongst its intended user groups, and further refine the tool based on our results. METHODS: Potential users (N = 32) were asked to assess one publicly reported figure using the FIAT-Health 1.0, and to justify their assessments and share their experience in using the FIAT-Health. In total four figures were assessed. For each figure, an expert on the specific topic (N = 4) provided a comparative assessment. The consistency of the answers was calculated, and answers to the evaluation questions were qualitatively analysed. A qualitative comparative analysis of the justifications for assessment by the experts and potential users was made. Based on the results, a new version of the FIAT-Health was developed and tested by employees (N = 27) of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and approved by the project's advisory group. In total sixty-three participants contributed. RESULTS: Potential users using the FIAT-Health 1.0 and experts gave similar justifications for their assessments. The justifications provided by experts aligned with the items of the FIAT-Health. Seventeen out of twenty-six dichotomous questions were consistently answered by the potential users. Numerical assessment questions showed inconsistencies in how potential users responded. In the evaluation, potential users most frequently mentioned that thanks to its structured approach, the FIAT-Health contributed to their awareness of the main characteristics of the figure (n = 14), but they did find the tool complex (n = 11). The FIAT-Health 1.0 was revised from a scoring instrument into a critical appraisal tool: the FIAT-Health 2.0, which was tested and approved by employees of the RIVM and the advisory group. CONCLUSION: The tool was refined according to the results of the test and evaluation, transforming the FIAT-Health from a quantitative scoring instrument into an online qualitative appraisal tool that has the potential to aid the better interpretation and public reporting of statistics on health and healthcare.

Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in 2017: a commentary on the reasons behind their quick spread in the EU compared with the USA.

In the final issue of Public Health Nutrition in 2017, Kathryn Backholer and colleagues provide a clear overview of the spread of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) in 2017, and a useful overview of opposing arguments and their counterpoints. Backholer et al. argue that much of the action was concentrated in the USA, but in the present commentary we point out that the recent sweep of SSB tax policy announcements in the EU seems much more promising. Policy makers in EU countries seem to learn from neighbouring countries, while political ideologies do not appear to stand in the way. This could have international spillover effects as the default tax thresholds of 5 and 8 g sugar/100 ml, used in EU cases, provide clear incentives for the multinational soda industry to reduce sugar levels across the board, although it is not yet clear whether the tiered tax designs used in the EU are actually more effective than the flat rate tax designs used in the USA. Scholars may contribute to the policy momentum by comparing the effectiveness and feasibility of both designs in different policy contexts, including lower- and middle-income countries. The spread of SSB taxes in the USA will nevertheless most likely be limited so long as it remains a local policy and 'no-go' for the Republican Party. We explain the differences between the EU and USA by comparing the level of fiscal decentralization, the political context and the use of framing strategies.

Creating performance intelligence for primary health care strengthening in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care and its strengthening through performance measurement is essential for sustainably working towards universal health coverage. Existing performance frameworks and indicators to measure primary health care capture system functions like governance, financing and resourcing but to a lesser extent the function of services delivery and its heterogeneous nature. Moreover, most frameworks have weak links with routine information systems and national health priorities, especially in the context of high- and middle-income countries. This paper presents the development of a tool that responds to this context with the aim to create primary health care performance intelligence for the 53 countries of the WHO European Region. METHODS: The work builds-off of an existing systematic review on primary care and draws on priorities of current European health policies and available (inter)national information systems. Its development included: (i) reviewing and classifying features of primary care; (ii) constructing a set of tracer conditions; and (iii) mapping existing indicators in the framework resulting from (i). The analysis was validated through a series of reviews: in-person meetings with country-nominated focal points and primary care experts; at-distance expert reviews; and, preliminary testing with country informants. RESULTS: The resulting framework applies a performance continuum in the classical approach of structures-processes-outcomes spanning 6 domains - primary care structures, model of primary care, care contact, primary care outputs, health system outcomes, and health outcomes - that are further classified by 26 subdomains and 63 features of primary care. A care continuum was developed using a set of 12 tracer conditions. A total of 139 indicators were mapped to the classification, each with an identified data source to safeguard measurability. Individual indicator passports and a glossary of terms were developed to support the standardization of the findings. CONCLUSION: The resulting framework and suite of indicators, coined the Primary Health Care Impact, Performance and Capacity Tool (PHC-IMPACT), has the potential to be applied in Europe, closing the gap on existing data collection, analysis and use of performance intelligence for decision-making towards primary health care strengthening.

Statistics in Dutch policy debates on health and healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The notion of 'fact-free politics' is debated in Europe and the United States of America and has particular relevance for the use of evidence to underpin health and healthcare policies. To better understand how evidence on health and healthcare is used in the national policy-making process in the Netherlands, we explore how different statistics are used in various policy debates on health and healthcare in the Dutch government and parliament. METHODS: We chose eight ongoing policy debates as case studies representing the subject categories of morbidity, lifestyle, healthcare expenditure and healthcare outcomes, including (1) breast cancer screening rates, prevalence and incidence, (2) dementia prevalence and incidence, (3) prevalence of alcohol use by pregnant women, (4) mobility and school sports participation in children, (5) costs of smoking, (6) Dutch national healthcare expenditure, (7) hospital mortality rates, and (8) bedsore prevalence. Using selected keywords for each policy debate case, we performed a document search to identify documentation of the debates (2014-2016) on the websites of the Dutch government and parliament. We retrieved 163 documents and examined the policy debate cases through a content analyses approach. RESULTS: Sources of the statistics used in policy debates were primarily government funded. We identified two distinct functions, i.e. rhetorical and managerial use of statistics. The function of the debate is rhetorical when the specific statistic is used for agenda-setting or to convince the reader of the importance of a topic. The function of the debate is managerial when statistics determine planning, monitoring or evaluation of policy. When evaluating a specific policy, applied statistics were mostly the result of routine or standardised data collection. When policy-makers use statistics for a managerial function, the policy debate mirrors terms derived from scientific debates. CONCLUSION: While statistics used for rhetorical functions do not seem to invite critical reflection, when the function of the debate is managerial, i.e. to plan, monitor or evaluate healthcare, their construction does receive attention. Considering the current role of statistics in rhetorical and managerial debates, there is a need to be cautious of too much leniency towards the technocratic process in exchange for the democratic debate.

Improving interpretation of publically reported statistics on health and healthcare: the Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool (FIAT-Health).

BACKGROUND: Policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public are confronted daily with figures on health and healthcare through public reporting in newspapers, webpages and press releases. However, information on the key characteristics of these figures necessary for their correct interpretation is often not adequately communicated, which can lead to misinterpretation and misinformed decision-making. The objective of this research was to map the key characteristics relevant to the interpretation of figures on health and healthcare, and to develop a Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) through which figures on health and healthcare can be systematically assessed, allowing for a better interpretation of these figures. METHODS: The abovementioned key characteristics of figures on health and healthcare were identified through systematic expert consultations in the Netherlands on four topic categories of figures, namely morbidity, healthcare expenditure, healthcare outcomes and lifestyle. The identified characteristics were used as a frame for the development of the FIAT-Health. Development of the tool and its content was supported and validated through regular review by a sounding board of potential users. RESULTS: Identified characteristics relevant for the interpretation of figures in the four categories relate to the figures' origin, credibility, expression, subject matter, population and geographical focus, time period, and underlying data collection methods. The characteristics were translated into a set of 13 dichotomous and 4-point Likert scale questions constituting the FIAT-Health, and two final assessment statements. Users of the FIAT-Health were provided with a summary overview of their answers to support a final assessment of the correctness of a figure and the appropriateness of its reporting. CONCLUSIONS: FIAT-Health can support policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public to systematically assess the quality of publicly reported figures on health and healthcare. It also has the potential to support the producers of health and healthcare data in clearly communicating their data to different audiences. Future research should focus on the further validation of the tool in practice.

How and why do countries differ in their governance and financing-related administrative expenditure in health care? An analysis of OECD countries by health care system typology.

INTRODUCTION: Administration is vital for health care. Its importance may increase as health care systems become more complex, but academic attention has remained minimal. We investigated trends in administrative expenditure across OECD countries, cross-country spending differences, spending differences between health care system typologies, and differences in the scale and scope of administrative functions across typologies. METHODS: We used OECD data, which include health system governance and financing-related administrative activities by regulators, governance bodies, and insurers (macrolevel), but exclude administrative expenditure by health care providers (mesolevel and microlevel). RESULTS: We find that governance and financing-related administrative spending at the macrolevel has remained stable over the last decade at slightly over 3% of total health spending. Cross-country differences range from 1.3% of health spending in Iceland to 8.3% in the United States. Voluntary private health insurance bears much higher administrative costs than compulsory schemes in all countries. Among compulsory schemes, multiple payers exhibit significantly higher administrative spending than single payers. Among single-payer schemes, those where entitlements are based on residency have significantly lower administrative spending than those with single social health insurance, albeit with a small difference. DISCUSSION: These differences can partially be explained because multi-payer and voluntary private health insurance schemes require additional administrative functions and enjoy less economies of scale. Studies in hospitals and primary care indicate similar differences in administrative costs across health system typologies at the mesolevel and microlevel of health care delivery, which warrants more research on total administrative costs at all the levels of health systems.

Primary care in an unstable security, humanitarian, economic and political context: the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

BACKGROUND: This study presents a descriptive synthesis of Kurdistan Region of Iraq's (KRI) primary care system, which is undergoing comprehensive primary care reforms within the context of a cross-cutting structural economic adjustment program and protracted security, humanitarian, economic and political crises. METHODS: The descriptive analysis used a framework operationalizing Starfield's classic primary care model for health services research. A scoping review was performed using relevant sources, and expert consultations were conducted for completing and validating data. RESULTS: The descriptive analysis presents a complex narrative of a primary care system undergoing classical developmental processes of transitioning middle-income countries. The system is simultaneously under tremendous pressure to adapt to the continuously changing, complex and resource-intensive needs of sub-populations exhibiting varying morbidity patterns, within the context of protracted security, humanitarian, economic, and political crises. Despite exhibiting significant resilience in the face of the ongoing crises, the continued influx of IDPs and Syrian refugees, coupled with extremely limited resources and weak governance at policy, organizational and clinical levels threaten the sustainability of KRI's public primary care system. Diverse trajectories to the strengthening and development of primary care are underway by local and international actors, notably the World Bank, RAND Corporation, UN organizations and USAID, focusing on varying imperatives related to the protracted humanitarian and economic crises. CONCLUSIONS: The convergence, interaction and outcomes of the diverse initiatives and policy approaches in relation to the development of KRI's primary care system are complex and highly uncertain. A common vision of primary care is required to align resources, initiatives and policies, and to enable synergy between all local and international actors involved in the developmental and humanitarian response. Further research that integrates the knowledge synthesized in this article, and enables actors in KRI to learn from their own experiences and efforts, along with those of other jurisdictions, would be invaluable towards the ongoing development of primary care.

Are performance indicators used for hospital quality management: a qualitative interview study amongst health professionals and quality managers in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are under increasing pressure to share indicator-based performance information. These indicators can also serve as a means to promote quality improvement and boost hospital performance. Our aim was to explore hospitals' use of performance indicators for internal quality management activities. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study among 72 health professionals and quality managers in 14 acute care hospitals in The Netherlands. Concentrating on orthopaedic and oncology departments, our goal was to gain insight into data collection and use of performance indicators for two conditions: knee and hip replacement surgery and breast cancer surgery. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and summarised. Based on the data, themes were synthesised and the analyses were executed systematically by two analysts independently. The findings were validated through comparison. RESULTS: The hospitals we investigated collect data for performance indicators in different ways. Similarly, these hospitals have different ways of using such data to support their quality management, while some do not seem to use the data for this purpose at all. Factors like 'linking pin champions', pro-active quality managers and engaged medical specialists seem to make a difference. In addition, a comprehensive hospital data infrastructure with electronic patient records and robust data collection software appears to be a prerequisite to produce reliable external performance indicators for internal quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals often fail to use performance indicators as a means to support internal quality management. Such data, then, are not used to its full potential. Hospitals are recommended to focus their human resource policy on 'linking pin champions', the engagement of professionals and a pro-active quality manager, and to invest in a comprehensive data infrastructure. Furthermore, the differences in data collection processes between Dutch hospitals make it difficult to draw comparisons between outcomes of performance indicators.

Reporting and use of the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators at national and regional level in 15 countries.

QUALITY PROBLEM OR ISSUE: OECD member states are involved since 2003 in a project coordinated by the OECD on Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI). All OECD countries are biennially requested by the OECD to deliver national data on the quality indicators for international benchmarking purposes. INITIAL ASSESSMENT: Currently, there is no knowledge whether the OECD HCQI information is used by the countries themselves for healthcare system accountability and improvement purposes. CHOICE OF SOLUTION: The objective of the study is to explore the reporting and use of OECD HCQI in OECD member-states. IMPLEMENTATION: Data were collected through a questionnaire sent to all OECD member-states containing factual questions on the reporting on all OECD HCQ-indicators. Responses were received between June and December 2014. In this timeframe, two reminders were sent to the participants. The work progress was presented during HCQI Meetings in November 2014 and May 2015. EVALUATION: Fifteen countries reported to have a total of 163 reports in which one or more HCQIs were reported. One hundred and sixteen were national and 47 were regional reports. Forty-nine reports had a general system focus, 80 were disease specific, 10 referred to a specific type of care setting, 22 were thematic and 2 were a combination of two (disease specific for a particular type of care and thematic for a specific type of care). Most reports were from Canada: 49. All 15 countries use one or more OECD indicators. LESSONS LEARNED: The OECD quality indicators have acquired a clear place in national and regional monitoring activities. Some indicators are reported more often than others. These differences partly reflect differences between healthcare systems. Whereas some indicators have become very common, such as cancer care indicators, others, such as mental healthcare and patient experience indicators are relatively new and require some more time to be adopted more widely.

The influence of context on the effectiveness of hospital quality improvement strategies: a review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: It is now widely accepted that the mixed effect and success rates of strategies to improve quality and safety in health care are in part due to the different contexts in which the interventions are planned and implemented. The objectives of this study were to (i) describe the reporting of contextual factors in the literature on the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies, (ii) assess the relationship between effectiveness and contextual factors, and (iii) analyse the importance of contextual factors. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews searching the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase and CINAHL. The search focused on quality improvement strategies included in the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group taxonomy. We extracted data on quality improvement effectiveness and context factors. The latter were categorized according to the Model for Understanding Success in Quality tool. RESULTS: We included 56 systematic reviews in this study of which only 35 described contextual factors related with the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions. The most frequently reported contextual factors were: quality improvement team (n = 12), quality improvement support and capacity (n = 11), organization (n = 9), micro-system (n = 8), and external environment (n = 4). Overall, context factors were poorly reported. Where they were reported, they seem to explain differences in quality improvement effectiveness; however, publication bias may contribute to the observed differences. CONCLUSIONS: Contextual factors may influence the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions, in particular at the level of the clinical micro-system. Future research on the implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions should emphasize formative evaluation to elicit information on context factors and report on them in a more systematic way in order to better appreciate their relative importance.

Implementing hospital quality assurance policies in Iran: balancing licensing, annual evaluation, inspections and quality management systems.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of applied hospital quality assurance (QA) policies in Iran. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A mixed method (quantitative data and qualitative document analysis) study was carried out between 1996 and 2010. FINDINGS: The QA policy cycle forms a tight monitoring system to assure hospital quality by combining mandatory and voluntary methods in Iran. The licensing, annual evaluation and grading, and regulatory inspections statutorily implemented by the government as a national package to assure and improve hospital care quality, while implementing quality management systems (QMS) was voluntary for hospitals. The government's strong QA policy legislation role and support has been an important factor for successful QA implementation in Iran, though it may affected QA assessment independency and validity. Increased hospital evaluation independency and repositioning, updating standards, professional involvement and effectiveness studies could increase QA policy impact and maturity. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The study highlights the current QA policy implementation cycle in Iranian hospitals. It provides a basis for further quality strategy development in Iranian hospitals and elsewhere. It also raises attention about finding the optimal balance between different QA policies, which is topical for many countries. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper describes experiences when implementing a unique approach, combining mandatory and voluntary QA policies simultaneously in a developing country, which has invested considerably over time to improve hospital quality. The experiences with a mixed obligatory/voluntary approach and comprehensive policies in Iran may contain lessons for policy makers in developing and developed countries.