1
|
Patel C, Sargent GM, Tinessia A, Mayfield H, Chateau D, Ali A, Tuibeqa I, Sheel M. Measuring what matters: Context-specific indicators for assessing immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries and Areas. PLOS GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH 2024; 4:e0003068. [PMID: 39052626 PMCID: PMC11271932 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2024] [Accepted: 06/18/2024] [Indexed: 07/27/2024]
Abstract
Increasing countries' access to data can improve immunisation coverage through evidence-based decision-making. However, data collection and reporting is resource-intensive, so needs to be pragmatic, especially in low-and-middle-income countries. We aimed to identify which indicators are most important for measuring, and improving, national immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). We conducted an expert elicitation study, asking 13 experts involved in delivering immunisation programs, decision-makers, health information specialists, and global development partners across PICs to rate 41 indicators based on their knowledge of the feasibility and relevance of each indicator. We also asked experts their preferences for indicators to be retained or removed from a list of indicators for PICs. Experts participated in two rating rounds, with a discussion on the reasons for ratings before the second round. We calculated mean scores for feasibility and relevance, and ranked indicators based on experts' preferences and mean scores. We used framework analysis to identify reasons for selecting indicators. Experts agreed that certain indicators were essential to measure (e.g. data use in program planning and measles vaccination coverage), but preferences varied for most indicators. Preferences to include indicators in a set of indicators for PICs moderately correlated with scores for relevance (r = 0.68) and feasibility (r = 0.56). In discussions, experts highlighted usefulness for decision-making and ease of data collection, reporting and interpretation as the main reasons driving indicator selection. Country-specific factors such as health system factors, roles and influence of various immunisation actors, and macro-level factors (namely population size, distribution and mobility) affected relevance and feasibility, leading us to conclude that a single set of indicators for all PICs is inappropriate. Rather than having a strict set of indicators that all countries must measure and report against, performance indicators should be flexible, country-specific, and selected in consultation with immunisation actors who collect and use the data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cyra Patel
- National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
| | - Ginny M. Sargent
- National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
| | - Adeline Tinessia
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Helen Mayfield
- UQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Dan Chateau
- National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
| | - Akeem Ali
- World Health Organization, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Ilisapeci Tuibeqa
- Department of Paediatrics, Colonial War Memorial Hospital, Suva, Fiji
| | - Meru Sheel
- National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
- Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Heenan MA, Randall GE, Evans JM, Reid EM. Multiple case study of processes used by hospitals to select performance indicators: do they align with best practices? Int J Qual Health Care 2024; 36:mzae011. [PMID: 38445667 PMCID: PMC10915788 DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2023] [Revised: 01/07/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 03/07/2024] Open
Abstract
Several health policy institutes recommend reducing the number of indicators monitored by hospitals to better focus on indicators most relevant to local contexts. To determine which indicators are the most appropriate to eliminate, one must understand how indicator selection processes are undertaken. This study classifies hospital indicator selection processes and analyzes how they align with practices outlined in the 5-P Indicator Selection Process Framework. This qualitative, multiple case study examined indicator selection processes used by four large acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected through 13 semistructured interviews and document analysis. A thematic analysis compared processes to the 5-P Indicator Selection Process Framework. Two types of hospital indicator selection processes were identified. Hospitals deployed most elements found within the 5-P Indicator Selection Process Framework including setting clear aims, having governance structures, considering indicators required by health agencies, and categorizing indicators into strategic themes. Framework elements largely absent included: adopting evidence-based selection criteria; incorporating finance and human resources indicators; considering if indicators measure structures, processes, or outcomes; and engaging a broader set of end users in the selection process. Hospitals have difficulty in balancing how to monitor government-mandated indicators with indicators more relevant to local operations. Hospitals often do not involve frontline managers in indicator selection processes. Not engaging frontline managers in selecting indicators may risk hospitals only choosing government-mandated indicators that are not reflective of frontline operations or valued by those managers accountable for improving unit-level performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael A Heenan
- DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada
| | - Glen E Randall
- DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada
| | - Jenna M Evans
- DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada
| | - Erin M Reid
- DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sapkota S, Dhakal A, Rushton S, van Teijlingen E, Marahatta SB, Balen J, Lee AC. The impact of decentralisation on health systems: a systematic review of reviews. BMJ Glob Health 2023; 8:e013317. [PMID: 38135299 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Decentralisation is a common mechanism for health system reform; yet, evidence of how it impacts health systems remains fragmented. Despite published findings from primary and secondary research illustrating range of impacts, a comprehensive and clear understanding is currently lacking. This review synthesised the existing evidence to assess how decentralisation (by devolution) impacts each of the six WHO building blocks, and the health system. METHOD We systematically searched five electronic databases for reviews exploring impact of decentralisation on health systems, globally. Reviews, both systematic and non-systematic, published in the English language from January 1990 to February 2022 were included. Data were synthesised across each of six building blocks. Quality assessment of the reviews was conducted using Critical Appraisal Skills Program for systematic and Scale for Assessment of Narrative Review Articles for non-systematic reviews. RESULTS Nine reviews, each addressing somewhat different questions, contexts and issues, were included. A range of positive and negative impacts of decentralisation on health system building blocks were identified; yet, overall, the impacts were more negative. Although inconclusive, evidence suggested that the impacts on leadership and governance and financing components in particular shape the impact on overall health system. Assessment of how the impact on building blocks translates to the broader impact on health systems is challenged by the dynamic complexities related to contexts, process and the health system itself. CONCLUSIONS Decentralisation, even if well intentioned, can have unintended consequences. Despite the difficulty of reaching universally applicable conclusions about the pros and cons of decentralisation, this review highlights some of the common potential issues to consider in advance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42022302013.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sujata Sapkota
- Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
| | - Amshu Dhakal
- Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
| | - Simon Rushton
- Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
- The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Edwin van Teijlingen
- Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
- Bournemouth University, Poole, UK
| | - Sujan B Marahatta
- Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
- Nepal Open University, Lalitpur, Nepal
| | - Julie Balen
- Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
- The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kazamer A, Ilinca R, Vesa S, Lorenzovici L, Stanescu-Spinu II, Ganea I, Greabu M, Miricescu D, Biczo A, Ionescu D. A Potential Indicator for Assessing Patient Blood Management Standard Implementation. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11:2233. [PMID: 37628431 PMCID: PMC10454481 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11162233] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2023] [Revised: 07/13/2023] [Accepted: 08/05/2023] [Indexed: 08/27/2023] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: Patient blood management (PBM) program as a multidisciplinary practice and a standard of care for the anemic surgical patient has an increasingly important role in reducing transfusions and optimizing both clinical outcomes and costs. Documented success of PBM implementation is not sufficient for implementation of recommendations and correct use at hospital level. The primary objective of our study was to define a composite patient blood management process safety index-Safety Index in PBM (SIPBM)-that measures the impact of screening and treating anemic patients on the efficiency and effectiveness of the patient care process undergoing elective surgery. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective comparative study in a tertiary hospital by collecting data and analyzing the Safety Index in PBM (SIPBM) in patients undergoing major elective surgical procedures. (3) Results: The percentage of patients from the total of 354 patients (178 in 2019 and 176 in 2022) included in the study who benefited from preoperative iron treatment increased in 2022 compared to 2019 from 27.40% to 36.71%. The median value of the SIPBM was 1.00 in both periods analyzed, although there is a significant difference between the two periods (p < 0.005), in favor of 2022. (4) Conclusions: Measuring the effectiveness of PBM implementation and providing ongoing feedback through the Safety Index in PBM (SIPBM) increases the degree to which opportunities to improve the PBM process are identified. The study represents a first step for future actions and baselines to develop tools to measure the safety and impact of the patient blood management process in the surgical field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Kazamer
- CREST Association, 48 Alexandru Odobescu Street, 440069 Satu Mare, Romania
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care I, Faculty of Medicine, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Victor Babes Street, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (S.V.); (D.I.)
| | - Radu Ilinca
- Discipline of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Dentistry, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 4-6 Eforie Street, 050037 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Stefan Vesa
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care I, Faculty of Medicine, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Victor Babes Street, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (S.V.); (D.I.)
| | - Laszlo Lorenzovici
- Faculty of Technical and Human Sciences, Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, 4 Matei Corvin Street, 400112 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
| | - Iulia-Ioana Stanescu-Spinu
- Discipline of Biochemistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Eroii Sanitari Street, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (I.-I.S.-S.); (M.G.); (D.M.)
| | - Ionela Ganea
- Department of Modern Languages, Faculty of Medicine, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Eroii Sanitari Street, 050474 Bucharest, Romania;
| | - Maria Greabu
- Discipline of Biochemistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Eroii Sanitari Street, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (I.-I.S.-S.); (M.G.); (D.M.)
| | - Daniela Miricescu
- Discipline of Biochemistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Eroii Sanitari Street, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (I.-I.S.-S.); (M.G.); (D.M.)
| | - Andras Biczo
- Department Hamm 2 Manufacturing and Production Technology, Hamm-Lippstadt University of Applied Sciences, Allee 76-78, D-59063 Hamm, Germany;
| | - Daniela Ionescu
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care I, Faculty of Medicine, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Victor Babes Street, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (S.V.); (D.I.)
- Outcome Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
| |
Collapse
|