Benchmarking strategies for measuring the quality of healthcare: problems and prospects.
Over the last few years, increasing attention has been directed toward the problems inherent to measuring the quality of healthcare and implementing benchmarking strategies. Besides offering accreditation and certification processes, recent approaches measure the performance of healthcare institutions in order to evaluate their effectiveness, defined as the capacity to provide treatment that modifies and improves the patient's state of health. This paper, dealing with hospital effectiveness, focuses on research methods for effectiveness analyses within a strategy comparing different healthcare institutions. The paper, after having introduced readers to the principle debates on benchmarking strategies, which depend on the perspective and type of indicators used, focuses on the methodological problems related to performing consistent benchmarking analyses. Particularly, statistical methods suitable for controlling case-mix, analyzing aggregate data, rare events, and continuous outcomes measured with error are examined. Specific challenges of benchmarking strategies, such as the risk of risk adjustment (case-mix fallacy, underreporting, risk of comparing noncomparable hospitals), selection bias, and possible strategies for the development of consistent benchmarking analyses, are discussed. Finally, to demonstrate the feasibility of the illustrated benchmarking strategies, an application focused on determining regional benchmarks for patient satisfaction (using 2009 Lombardy Region Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire) is proposed.
CRISP and Department of Quantitative Methods, University of Bicocca-Milan, V. Sarca 202, 20146 Milan, Italy. piergiorgio.lovaglio@unimib.it
Pietro Giorgio
PG
Lovaglio
D000068:Accreditation; D019985:Benchmarking; D002568:Certification; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D020379:Risk Adjustment