Diabetic retinopathy care--an international quality comparison.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to study the quality indicator appropriateness and use it for international quality comparison on diabetic retinopathy (DR) patient care process in one American and one Dutch eye hospital. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A 17-item DR quality indicator set was composed based on a literature review and systematically applied in two hospitals. Qualitative analysis entailed document study and 12 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with ophthalmologists, managers, and board members of the two hospitals. FINDINGS: While the medical-clinical approach to DR treatment in both hospitals was similar, differences were found in quality of care perception and operationalization. Neither hospital systematically used outcome indicators for DR care. On the process level, the authors found larger differences. Similarities and differences were found in the structure of both hospitals. The hospitals' particular contexts influenced the interpretation and use of quality indicators. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although quality indicators and quality comparison between hospitals are increasingly used in international settings, important local differences influence their application. Context should be taken into account. Since that context is locally bound and directly linked to hospital setting, caution should be used interpreting the results of quality comparison studies. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: International quality comparison is increasingly suggested as a useful way to improve healthcare. Little is known, however, about the appropriateness and use of quality indicators in local hospital care practices.

Hospital benchmarking: are U.S. eye hospitals ready?

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is increasingly considered a useful management instrument to improve quality in health care, but little is known about its applicability in hospital settings. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to assess the applicability of a benchmarking project in U.S. eye hospitals and compare the results with an international initiative. METHODOLOGY: We evaluated multiple cases by applying an evaluation frame abstracted from the literature to five U.S. eye hospitals that used a set of 10 indicators for efficiency benchmarking. Qualitative analysis entailed 46 semistructured face-to-face interviews with stakeholders, document analyses, and questionnaires. FINDINGS: The case studies only partially met the conditions of the evaluation frame. Although learning and quality improvement were stated as overall purposes, the benchmarking initiative was at first focused on efficiency only. No ophthalmic outcomes were included, and clinicians were skeptical about their reporting relevance and disclosure. However, in contrast with earlier findings in international eye hospitals, all U.S. hospitals worked with internal indicators that were integrated in their performance management systems and supported benchmarking. Benchmarking can support performance management in individual hospitals. Having a certain number of comparable institutes provide similar services in a noncompetitive milieu seems to lay fertile ground for benchmarking. International benchmarking is useful only when these conditions are not met nationally. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Although the literature focuses on static conditions for effective benchmarking, our case studies show that it is a highly iterative and learning process. The journey of benchmarking seems to be more important than the destination. Improving patient value (health outcomes per unit of cost) requires, however, an integrative perspective where clinicians and administrators closely cooperate on both quality and efficiency issues. If these worlds do not share such a relationship, the added "public" value of benchmarking in health care is questionable.

Evaluation of an international benchmarking initiative in nine eye hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking has become very popular among managers to improve quality in the private and public sector, but little is known about its applicability in international hospital settings. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability of an international benchmarking initiative in eye hospitals. METHODOLOGY: To assess the applicability, an evaluation frame was constructed on the basis of a systematic literature review. The frame was applied longitudinally to a case study of nine eye hospitals that used a set of performance indicators for benchmarking. Document analysis, nine questionnaires, and 26 semistructured interviews with stakeholders in each hospital were used for qualitative analysis. FINDINGS: The evaluation frame consisted of four areas with key conditions for benchmarking: purposes of benchmarking, performance indicators, participating organizations, and performance management systems. This study showed that the international benchmarking between eye hospitals scarcely met these conditions. The used indicators were not incorporated in a performance management system in any of the hospitals. Despite the apparent homogeneity of the participants and the absence of competition, differences in ownership, governance structure, reimbursement, and market orientation made comparisons difficult. Benchmarking, however, stimulated learning and exchange of knowledge. It encouraged interaction and thereby learning on the tactical and operational levels, which is also an incentive to attract and motivate staff. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Although international hospital benchmarking seems to be a rational process of sharing performance data, this case study showed that it is highly dependent on social processes and a learning environment. It can be useful for diagnostics, helping local hospitals to catalyze performance improvements.

Creating patient value in glaucoma care: applying quality costing and care delivery value chain approaches--a five-year case study in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to explore in a specific hospital care process the applicability in practice of the theories of quality costing and value chains. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In a retrospective case study an in-depth evaluation of the use of a quality cost model (QCM) and the applicability of Porter's care delivery value chain (CDVC) was performed in a specific care process: glaucoma care over the period 2001 to 2006 in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital in The Netherlands. FINDINGS: The case study shows a reduction of costs per product by increasing the number of outpatient visits and surgery combined with a higher patient satisfaction. Reduction of costs of non-compliance by using the QCM is small, due to the absence of (external) financial incentives for both the hospital and individual physicians. For CDVC to be supportive to an integrated quality and cost management the notion "patient value" needs far more specification as mutually agreed on by the stakeholders involved and related reimbursement needs to depend on realised outcomes. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The case study just focused on one specific care process in one hospital. To determine effects in other areas of health care, it is important to study the use and applicability of the QCM and the CDVC in other care processes and settings. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: QCM and a CDVC can be useful tools for hospital management to manage the outcomes on both quality and costs, but impact is dependent on the incentives in the context of the existing organisational and reimbursement system and asks for an agreed on operationalisation among the various stakeholders of the notion of patient value.