| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
1 Centre for Public Policy & Management, Department of Management, University of St Andrews, Fife, UK
2 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Correspondence to:
Professor H T O Davies, Department of Management, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, UK;
hd{at}st-and.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
Measuring the quality of health care has become a major concern for funders and providers of health services in recent decades. One of the ways in which quality of care is currently assessed is by taking routinely collected data and analysing them quantitatively. The use of routine data has many advantages but there are also some important pitfalls. Collating numerical data in this way means that comparisons can be made—whether over time, with benchmarks, or with other healthcare providers (at individual or institutional levels of aggregation). Inevitably, such comparisons reveal variations. The natural inclination is then to assume that such variations imply rankings: that the measures reflect quality and that variations in the measures reflect variations in quality. This paper identifies reasons why these assumptions need to be applied with care, and illustrates the pitfalls with examples from recent empirical work. It is intended to guide not only those who wish to interpret comparative quality data, but also those who wish to develop systems for such analyses themselves.
Keywords: quality improvement research; comparative analysis; league tables
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. A. Castilla, J. Hernandez, Y. Cabello, A. Lafuente, N. Pajuelo, J. Marqueta, B. Coroleu, and (Assisted Reproductive Technology Register of the Defining poor and optimum performance in an IVF programme Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2008; 23(1): 85 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Coenen, M. Ferech, F. M Haaijer-Ruskamp, C. C Butler, R. H Vander Stichele, T. J M Verheij, D. L Monnet, P. Little, H. Goossens, and the ESAC Project Group European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC): quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic use in Europe Qual. Saf. Health Care, December 1, 2007; 16(6): 440 - 445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Coory and I. Scott Analysing low-risk patient populations allows better discrimination between high-performing and low-performing hospitals: a case study using inhospital mortality from acute myocardial infarction Qual. Saf. Health Care, October 1, 2007; 16(5): 324 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E Sibly, C M Wiskin, R L Holder, and M W Cooke Short stay emergency admissions to a West Midlands NHS Trust: a longitudinal descriptive study, 2002 2005 Emerg. Med. J., August 1, 2007; 24(8): 553 - 557. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M S Habib, C V Bunce, and S G Fraser The role of case mix in the relation of volume and outcome in phacoemulsification Br. J. Ophthalmol., September 1, 2005; 89(9): 1143 - 1146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
