Search

Benchmarking in healthcare, particularly in the context of complex surgical procedures like pancreatic surgery, plays a pivotal role in comparing and evaluating the quality of care provided to patients. There is a growing body of evidence validating existent metrics and introducing new ones in the pursuit of safety and excellence in pancreatic surgery. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was conducted on metric development and validation across multiple databases, including PUBMED Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, until February 2024. The extracted data were categorized into three domains according to the Donabedian model: structure, process, and outcomes. Thirty-four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review. Among these articles, 20 contributed to metric development, while 14 studies validated them. A total of 234 metrics were identified across the 34 studies, of which 185 were included in the analysis. Thirty-three of these metrics were relative to structure, 79 to processes, and 73 to outcomes. The distribution of metric domains across the included studies revealed that structure, process, and outcome domains were reported in 12, 26, and 26 studies, respectively. In conclusion, this systematic review underscores the heterogeneity in metric development methodologies and the varying degrees of consensus among different quality indicators, despite the growing interest in benchmarking in pancreatic surgery. This review aims to inform future research efforts and contribute to the ongoing pursuit of excellence in pancreatic surgical care., (© 2024. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).)

Nine out of ten demonstration projects on clinical benchmarking funded by the German Ministry of Health were evaluated. Project reports and interviews were uniformly analysed using a list of criteria and a scheme to categorize the realized benchmarking approach. At the end of the funding period four benchmarking networks had implemented all benchmarking steps, and six were continued after funding had expired. The improvement of outcome quality cannot yet be assessed. Factors promoting the introduction of benchmarking networks with regard to organisational and process aspects of benchmarking implementation were derived., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Benchmarking as a tool of organisational development is directed towards improvement through learning from others. The German Ministry of Health funded 10 demonstration projects on clinical benchmarking in order to study the prerequisites to and the methods for its dissemination. The evaluation was carried out as an observational study in 2008. The evaluation tools used included a list of criteria to uniformly describe benchmarking networks and a scheme to categorize the realized benchmarking steps., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

A survey among 232 German health care organisations addressed benchmarking projects in patient care. 53 projects were reported and analysed using a benchmarking development scheme and a list of criteria. None of the projects satisfied all the criteria. Rather, examples of best practice for single aspects have been identified., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: Pancreatic surgery is performed in relatively few centres. There are validated quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery, although it remains unclear how published benchmarks compare with each other. This study aimed to systematically review published literature to summarise metrics that define quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery., Method: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was undertaken until June 2019. Articles that developed or validated published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery were included. Benchmarks were classified into three domains using the Donabedian framework, and their quality assessed using the AIRE Instrument., Results: Nineteen studies included 55 quality metrics, of which 8 developed new metrics, and 11 studies validated previously published metrics. The methodology of metric development was either expert opinion-driven or data-driven. All metrics demonstrated moderate quality scores. There was partial agreement in some metrics (e.g. < 10 h total operative duration), but lack of consensus for most others (e.g. lymph node yield ≥ 10, ≥ 12, ≥ 15, ≥ 16). No metrics related to patient reported outcomes., Conclusions: Published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery predominantly arise from eight studies, with heterogeneity in how the metrics were developed. There was not consensus for all metrics. Metrics need to be reviewed as new data emerge, technologies develop and opinions change.

Background: The Results Centre is the name of a project that, since 2012, has been openly publishing the results of each healthcare centre in Catalonia, with the idea of promoting benchmarking among centres and transparency toward society. As the project evolves, it has become increasingly necessary to adapt its contents and formats. The objective of this study is to identify the preferences and expectations of healthcare leaders regarding the Results Centre.Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using the nominal group technique. Five nominal groups were created with the participation of 58 professionals (26 from hospital care, 16 from primary care, and 16 from long-term care centres). The areas of analysis were: (1) what the Results Centre of the future should be like; (2) what information needs should be addressed; and (3) what novelties should be incorporated to stimulate quality improvement. The spontaneity of ideas, intensity of recommendations, and intergroup consistency were analysed. The study was conducted in April 2019.Results: The requirements reported by the participants to be met by the Results Centre included: being a tool for benchmarking and strategic decision-making; adjusted and segmented indicators; non-clinical information (patient experience, socio-economic status, etc.); and data accessible to all stakeholders, including citizens. The ideas were consistent across the different levels of care, although the intensity of recommendations varied depending on their content.Conclusions: Regional agencies that are accountable for health outcomes should be consistently committed to adapting to the needs of different stakeholders in the health system. This project is an example of how this requirement has been addressed in Catalonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a need to measure and improve the quality of paediatric primary care in Europe where major differences in the delivery and outcomes of child health care exist. A collaborative panel of paediatric senior experts developed a Core Set of Indicators for Paediatric Primary Care in Europe by compiling 42 quality indicators in a modified consensus process following the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of the quality indicator set in European paediatric primary care practices. Seventy-nine practices from eight countries participated in a detailed online interview. The practices rated the applicability, relevance, reliability and acceptance of the 42 quality indicator as well as the availability, technical feasibility and effort to retrieve the needed data from their medical records. Most quality indicators were considered applicable, available, reliable, acceptable and relevant for monitoring quality of care in paediatric primary care. Respondents rated feasibility and effort to retrieve the data lowest because of difficulties collecting the data from the medical records.Conclusion: European paediatric primary care practices generally agree with the proposed quality indicator set. They document most of the parameters. However, the collection of specific needed values from available routine patient-data is considered technically difficult and time-consuming. What is Known? • Paediatric primary care systems in Europe show striking differences in their performance. Pre-existing sets of quality indicators are predominantly limited to national populations, specific diseases and hospital care. • A Core Set of 42 quality indicators for paediatric primary care in Europe was developed by European paediatricians using a systematic literature review and a consensus process following a modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. What is New? • Paediatric primary care providers in Europe agree with the idea to use COSI-PPC-EU to monitor and improve the quality of care. The set was considered applicable, available, reliable, acceptable, and relevant for quality improvement. • The score for feasibility and effort to retrieve the data was low, because of technical reasons; the electronical or paper-based medical documentation in most cases does not allow convenient access to all necessary data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]