Choosing and Evaluating Clinical Performance Measures.
The importance and utility of routine externally reported assessments of the quality of heath care delivered in managed card organizations and hospitals have become widely accepted.
Because externally reported measures of quality are intended to inform or lead to action, proposers of such measures have a responsability to ensure that the results of the measures are meaningful, scientifically sound, and interpretable.
Criteria for selecting meaningful assessment areas :
In choosing clinical performance measures to distinguish among health plans, the condition should have a significant impact on morbidity and/or mortality ;
the link between the measured processes and outcomes of care should have been etablished empirically ;
quality in this area should be variable or substandard currently ;
and health plans and/or providers should be able to take clinically sensible actions to enhance performance on the measure.
Criteria for assessing scientific soundness
Scientific soudness-the likelihood that a clinical performance measure will produce consistent and credible results when implemented-involves precision of specifications, adaptability, and adequacy of risk adjustment.
Interpretability of results
Interpretability is affected by the content of the measure and the audience. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Soin, Evaluation, Méthodologie, Nursing, Validité, Epidémiologie, Méthode étude, Hôpital, Qualité, Politique, Politique sanitaire, Processus
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Care, Evaluation, Methodology, Nursing, Validity, Epidemiology, Investigation method, Hospital, Quality, Policy, Health policy, Process
Notice produite par :
ORS Auvergne - Observatoire Régional de la Santé d'Auvergne
Code Inist : 002B30A11. Création : 19/02/1999.