Dissemination of performance information and continuous improvement

Abstract

While considerable attention was paid to the public reporting of performance information, this review sheds some light on a more promising avenue for changes and improvements, notably in public health systems.

Use of comparative performance indicators in rehabilitation

“…In addition, in these organizations, the senior management was highly involved with the other management levels in implementing quality improvement plans. The leadership and ongoing commitment of decision makers and management has been reported in many studies as one of the determinants in the use of performance information (Bourne et al, 2003;Chan & Ho, 2000;de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001;de Waal & Counet, 2009;Lemire et al, 2013). Our results support this finding.…”

“…First, the perceived usefulness and validity of the performance indicators emerged as a much more important facilitator than their compatibility or perceived relevance. The importance of perceived usefulness and validity of the indicators has also been raised in several studies (Chan & Ho, 2000;Cheng & Thompson, 2006;Lemire et al, 2013;Mor, 2005).…”

“…Despite significant benefits, development and implementation of performance indicators is a challenge for all health care organizations (Fondation canadienne de la recherche sur les services de santé, 2008;Mettler & Rohner, 2009;Thompson & Harris, 2001) including rehabilitation organizations. Indeed, the lack of human and financial resources to develop information systems, to implement indicators producing reliable data, and to interpret and generate performance reports are important barriers documented in several studies (Chan & Ho, 2000;de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001;Goddard, Mannion, & Smith, 1998;Kaplan et al, 2010;Lemire, Demers-Payette, & Jefferson-Falardeau, 2013;Ramage & Armstrong, 2005). In addition, lack of planning, unrealistic expectations of short-term benefits, and the presence of competing organizational priorities hinder the use of performance indicators (Bourne, Neely, Mills, & Platts, 2003;de Waal & Counet, 2009;Kay, 2007).…”

“…In addition, lack of planning, unrealistic expectations of short-term benefits, and the presence of competing organizational priorities hinder the use of performance indicators (Bourne, Neely, Mills, & Platts, 2003;de Waal & Counet, 2009;Kay, 2007). Effective leadership and an ongoing commitment on the part of decision makers and competent staff and a sufficient investment of resources are key factors that contribute to the implementation and optimal use of performance indicators (Bourne et al, 2003;de Waal & Counet, 2009;Kay, 2007;Lemire et al, 2013).…”

Physician level reporting of surgical and pathology performance indicators: a regional study to assess feasibility and impact on quality

“…A systematic review on the effects of audit and feedback 9 concluded that feedback is more effective when baseline perform ance is low, when reports are inclusive of specific targets and when it is provided on a consistent basis. Specific to performance information, Lemire and colleagues 10 state that dissemination of performance data in itself it not sufficient to impact quality and that success depends on the cumulative impact of a multifaceted approach. The im portance of providing physicians with timely information about their practices supports the Institute for Healthcare Improvement framework for engaging physicians in quality and safety by encouraging the use of data in a nonpunitive manner to allow for reflection on practice and promotes both system and individual responsibility for quality.…”