Evaluating the future value of educational interventions in a health care setting

McLinden, Daniel; Phillips, Rebecca; Hamlin, Scott J.; Helbig, Adam

doi:10.1002/piq.20071

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The estimation was that for every £1 spent, £8.07 would be returned. McLinden et al 24 reported that for every $1 invested in training, $1.77 would be returned. Sensitivity analysis : The results of an economic evaluation are based on assumptions that bring uncertainty to the final ROI estimate. A sensitivity analysis needs to be performed in order to understand the probabilities and magnitude of the variation in evaluation results.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Direct transactions between customer and provider normally help quantify value in other industries. However, third-party payment systems in the delivery of healthcare make it difficult to identify opportunities for increasing ROI 24. Another key issue is converting intangible benefits to monetary value to be included in economic evaluations, given the central importance in healthcare of non-monetary outcomes, such as patient experience or health outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of ROI in QI allows the comparison of multiple inputs of an intervention on a common metric (cost). By monetising benefits (better care and better health), the intervention's value can be calculated relative to cost, 24 complying with broadly accepted 'value' frameworks, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim. 25 The purpose of this study was to identify key steps and elements that should be considered for system-level evaluations of investment in QI capacity building, summarised in a framework that can be used to guide such evaluations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeLeading health systems have invested in substantial quality improvement (QI) capacity building, but little is known about the aggregate effect of these investments at the health system level. We conducted a systematic review to identify key steps and elements that should be considered for system-level evaluations of investment in QI capacity building.MethodsWe searched for evaluations of QI capacity building and evaluations of QI training programmes. We included the most relevant indexed databases in the field and a strategic search of the grey literature. The latter included direct electronic scanning of 85 relevant government and institutional websites internationally. Data were extracted regarding evaluation design and common assessment themes and components.Results48 articles met the inclusion criteria. 46 articles described initiative-level non-economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, while 2 studies included economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, also at the initiative level. No system-level QI capacity building/training evaluations were found. We identified 17 evaluation components that fit within 5 overarching dimensions (characteristics of QI training; characteristics of QI activity; individual capacity; organisational capacity and impact) that should be considered in evaluations of QI capacity building. 8 key steps in return-on-investment (ROI) assessments in QI capacity building were identified: (1) planning—stakeholder perspective; (2) planning—temporal perspective; (3) identifying costs; (4) identifying benefits; (5) identifying intangible benefits that will not be included in the ROI estimation; (6) discerning attribution; (7) ROI calculations; (8) sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsThe literature on QI capacity building evaluation is limited in the number and scope of studies. Our findings, summarised in a Framework to Guide Evaluations of QI Capacity Building, can be used to start closing this knowledge gap.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, because changes in productivity associated with improved efficiency were not included in the analysis, it is possible that the full impact of the projects were underestimated. 24 For example, an additional improvement achieved by the Kipling Acres project was a reduction in the cost associated with patient intake, freeing up approximately 240 staff hours each year. 8 This was not included in the economic evaluation as staff hours could not be tracked using administrative databases.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usage of primary and administrative data to measure the economic impact of quality improvement projects

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trends in spending on training: An analysis of the 1982 through 2008 Training Annual Industry Reports

Carliner¹,

Bakir

2010

Perf. Improvement Qrtly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores long‐term trends in spending using data compiled from the Training magazine Annual Industry Survey from 1982 through 2008. It builds on literature that proposes spending on training is an investment that yields benefits—and that offers methods for demonstrating it. After adjusting for inflation, aggregate spending on training rose 1.5% between 1986 and 2008. Inflation‐adjusted spending on training staff fell 14%, although inflation‐adjusted spending on outside products and services increased 237%. Spending on training fell in all but two job categories. Findings support the belief that spending on training is falling but suggest that this is a sustained and systemic drop rather than a temporary response to an economic crisis. Also, expenditures on internal training resources have fallen, while spending on external resources has risen. A key limitation of this study is that it relies solely on data from the Training Annual Industry Survey.

show abstract

Evaluating the future value of educational interventions in a health care setting

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review

Usage of primary and administrative data to measure the economic impact of quality improvement projects

Trends in spending on training: An analysis of the 1982 through 2008 Training Annual Industry Reports

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About