Implementing a nationwide quality improvement approach in health services

Sahel, Amina; DeBrouwere, Vincent; Dujardin, Bruno; Kegels, Guy; Belkaab, N.; Belghiti, Abdelali Alaoui

doi:10.1108/lhs-04-2014-0042

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In such cases, the article was coded based on the dominant research method used for primary data analysis (e.g. Bunget et al, 2014;Coy & Dixon, 2004;Hooks et al, 2014;Sahel et al, 2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, when coding the articles in the "A5: PIS" category, we observe that six papers are focused on universities (e.g. Condie, Dunmore, & Dunstan et al, 2013;Coy & Dixon, 2004) and one refers to healthcare structures in Morocco (Sahel, DeBrouwere, Dujardin, Kegels, Belkaab, & Belghiti, 2015).…”

Section: Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, Africa and other sites contribute little to DQ measurement in public sector research. The paper from Africa provides a narrative literature review concerning factors influencing public sector disclosure (Abu Bakar & Saleh, 2015); while the article from another site analyses the implementation of quality improvement intervention for health services in Morocco (Sahel et al, 2015).…”

Section: Country Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, four papers focus on accountability and governance (C4) (Bisogno et al, 2014;Herzlinger, 1996;Hooks, Tooley, & Basnan, 2014;Krambia-Kapardis, 2014), only one article concerns performance measurement (C6) (Sahel et al, 2015), while five articles concentrate on other (C7) topics (Abu Bakar & Saleh, 2015;Araújo & Tejedo-Romero, 2016;Deaconu & Nistor, 2014;Joseph & Taplin, 2011;Yu, 2014). Finally, we observe that there are no published articles on auditing (C3) or management control strategy (C5).…”

Section: Focus Of Dq Measurement In the Public Sector Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to performance measurement (C6), Sahel et al (2015) present an innovative quality improvement intervention called the "Quality Contest" (QC), targeting health centres, hospitals and health district offices in Morocco and combining quality measurement with structure ranking, performance disclosure and reward systems.…”

Section: Accountability Governance and Performance Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Disclosure Quality Measurement in the Public Sector: A Structured Literature Review

Bisogno¹,

Citro²,

Santis³

et al. 2017

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study investigates previous research concerning disclosure quality measurement in the public sector context. The principal motivation for undertaking this analysis is the growing body of literature that has examined this issue from different perspectives in light of the increasing attention paid by academics and practitioners to the transparency and accountability of public sector entities. The study adopts a structured research methodology, aiming to offer a critical overview of the state of the art, highlighting the main issues investigated by scholars and the areas of research which are under-investigated, unveiling emerging gaps. In so doing, this study outlines a future research agenda.

show abstract

“…In such cases, the article was coded based on the dominant research method used for primary data analysis (e.g. Bunget et al, 2014;Coy & Dixon, 2004;Hooks et al, 2014;Sahel et al, 2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Country Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Focus Of Dq Measurement In the Public Sector Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accountability Governance and Performance Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Disclosure Quality Measurement in the Public Sector: A Structured Literature Review

Bisogno¹,

Citro²,

Santis³

et al. 2017

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Paying for performance to improve the delivery of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries

Diaconu

Falconer

Verbel

et al. 2021

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is growing interest in paying for performance (P4P) as a means to align the incentives of healthcare providers with public health goals. Rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies in improving health care and health in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) is lacking; this is an update of the 2012 review on this topic. Objectives To assess the effects of paying for performance on the provision of health care and health outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 10 other databases between April and June 2018. We also searched two trial registries, websites, online resources of international agencies, organizations and universities, and contacted experts in the field. Studies identified from rerunning searches in 2020 are under 'Studies awaiting classification.' Selection criteria We included randomized or non‐randomized trials, controlled before‐after studies, or interrupted time series studies conducted in LMICs (as defined by the World Bank in 2018). P4P refers to the transfer of money or material goods conditional on taking a measurable action or achieving a predetermined performance target. To be included, a study had to report at least one of the following outcomes: patient health outcomes, changes in targeted measures of provider performance (such as the delivery of healthcare services), unintended effects, or changes in resource use. Data collection and analysis We extracted data as per original review protocol and narratively synthesised findings. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Given diversity and variability in intervention types, patient populations, analyses and outcome reporting, we deemed meta‐analysis inappropriate. We noted the range of effects associated with P4P against each outcome of interest. Based on intervention descriptions provided in documents, we classified design schemes and explored variation in effect by scheme design. Main results We included 59 studies: controlled before‐after studies (19), non‐randomized (16) or cluster randomized trials (14); and interrupted time‐series studies (9). One study included both an interrupted time series and a controlled before‐after study. Studies focused on a wide range of P4P interventions, including target payments and payment for outputs as modified by quality (or quality and equity assessments). Only one study assessed results‐based aid. Many schemes were funded by national governments (23 studies) with the World Bank funding most externally funded schemes (11 studies). Targeted services varied; however, most interventions focused on reproductive, maternal and child health indicators. Participants were predominantly located in public or in a mix of public, non‐governmental and faith‐based facilities (54 studies). P4P was assesse...

show abstract

Stewardship of quality of care in health systems: Core functions, common pitfalls, and potential solutions

Chan

Veillard

Cowling

et al. 2018

Public Admin & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National Ministries of Health in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have a key role to play as stewards of the quality agenda in their health systems. This paper uses a previously developed six-point framework for stewardship (strategy formulation, intersectoral collaboration, governance and accountability, health system design, policy and regulation, and intelligence generation) and identifies specific examples of activities in LMICs in each of these domains, pitfalls to avoid, and possible solutions to these pitfalls. Many LMICs now have quality strategies with clear vision statements.There are good examples of quality agencies and donor collaboration councils to coordinate activities across different sectors. There are multiple options for accountability, including public reporting, community accountability structures, results-based payment, accreditation, and inspection. To improve health system design, available tools include decision support tools, task-shifting models, supply chain management, and programs to train quality improvement staff. Policy options include legislation on disclosure of adverse events, and regulations to ensure skills of health care providers.Lastly, health information tools include patient registries, facility surveys, hospital discharge abstracts, standardized population and patient surveys, and dedicated agencies for reporting on quality. Policy-makers can use this article to identify options for driving the quality agenda and address anticipated implementation barriers. KEYWORDS accountability, health information management, health policy, less-developed countries, quality improvement, quality of health care, quality strategy, stewardship

show abstract

Implementing a nationwide quality improvement approach in health services

Cited by 10 publications

References 19 publications

Disclosure Quality Measurement in the Public Sector: A Structured Literature Review

Disclosure Quality Measurement in the Public Sector: A Structured Literature Review

Paying for performance to improve the delivery of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries

Stewardship of quality of care in health systems: Core functions, common pitfalls, and potential solutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About