Performance indicators: healthcare professionals’ views
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to capture factors behind professional views of indicator usefulness as a common structure for assessing healthcare performance and their important characteristics to design limited key performance indicators (PIs) for holistic hospital management. Design/metho...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of health care quality assurance 2016-08, Vol.29 (7), p.801-815 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 815 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 801 |
container_title | International journal of health care quality assurance |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Gu, Xiuzhu Itoh, Kenji |
description | Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to capture factors behind professional views of indicator usefulness as a common structure for assessing healthcare performance and their important characteristics to design limited key performance indicators (PIs) for holistic hospital management.
Design/methodology/approach
– Two surveys were conducted using self-administered questionnaires, in which hospital manager/staff respondents were asked to rate the 52 PIs’ usefulness. In total, 228 manager and 894 staff responses were collected.
Findings
– Eight factors were elicited from manager and staff responses as performance measures with 72 percent cumulative variance accounted for. Hospital managers and staff showed similar performance measure perceptions: high-utility acknowledgment on safety, operational efficiency and patient/employee satisfaction but relatively low-employee development concerns. Manager indicator usefulness perceptions were rather homogeneous and significantly higher than staff for almost all performance measures.
Practical implications
– Homogeneous manager views mean that a single key PI set for hospital management may be established regardless of hospital attributes. The following aspects may be measures that should be managed in a healthcare organization based on their key PIs: patient/employee safety, operational efficiency, financial effectiveness and patient/employee satisfaction.
Originality/value
– This is a pilot study on hospital management PIs in Japan. The eight-dimensional factor structure and findings about healthcare provider perceptions may be useful for healthcare management. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1108/IJHCQA-12-2015-0142 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_IJHCQA-12-2015-0142</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2108838598</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-2c0c6445bf7eff0904819173523075ec425f344d7526634fd39776e62dbdc583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9Kw0AQhxdRbK0-gSAFL16iu7N_460UtZWCCr0v6WaWpiRN3W0Vb76Gr-eTmNAqKHgaBr7fj-EbQk4ZvWSMmqvx_Wj4NEgYJECZTCgTsEe6TEuTKClgn3RpKiFRRkGHHMW4oJRyLvUh6YAWWqdcdkn6iMHXocqWDvvFMi9ctq5DvO7PMSvXc5cF7K9C7THGol5mZfx8_-i_FPgaj8mBb3Y82c0emd7eTIejZPJwNx4OJokTRq0TcNQpIeTMa_SeplQYljLNJXCqJToB0nMhci1BKS58zlOtFSrIZ7mThvfIxba2ueJ5g3FtqyI6LMtsifUmWmao4QaAsQY9_4Mu6k1oj7bQCGswmbaFfEu5UMcY0NtVKKosvFlGbSvWbsVaBrYVa1uxTeps172ZVZj_ZL5NNgBsAawwZGX-T-uvd_EvEeGBug</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2108838598</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance indicators: healthcare professionals’ views</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Emerald eJournals</source><creator>Gu, Xiuzhu ; Itoh, Kenji</creator><creatorcontrib>Gu, Xiuzhu ; Itoh, Kenji</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to capture factors behind professional views of indicator usefulness as a common structure for assessing healthcare performance and their important characteristics to design limited key performance indicators (PIs) for holistic hospital management.
Design/methodology/approach
– Two surveys were conducted using self-administered questionnaires, in which hospital manager/staff respondents were asked to rate the 52 PIs’ usefulness. In total, 228 manager and 894 staff responses were collected.
Findings
– Eight factors were elicited from manager and staff responses as performance measures with 72 percent cumulative variance accounted for. Hospital managers and staff showed similar performance measure perceptions: high-utility acknowledgment on safety, operational efficiency and patient/employee satisfaction but relatively low-employee development concerns. Manager indicator usefulness perceptions were rather homogeneous and significantly higher than staff for almost all performance measures.
Practical implications
– Homogeneous manager views mean that a single key PI set for hospital management may be established regardless of hospital attributes. The following aspects may be measures that should be managed in a healthcare organization based on their key PIs: patient/employee safety, operational efficiency, financial effectiveness and patient/employee satisfaction.
Originality/value
– This is a pilot study on hospital management PIs in Japan. The eight-dimensional factor structure and findings about healthcare provider perceptions may be useful for healthcare management.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0952-6862</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-6542</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/IJHCQA-12-2015-0142</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27477935</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Adult ; Business metrics ; Efficiency ; Expenditures ; Female ; Health & social care ; Health administration ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Health service delivery ; Health service quality ; Hospital administration ; Hospital Administrators - psychology ; Humans ; Male ; Medical personnel ; Medical Staff, Hospital - psychology ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Nosocomial infections ; Occupational safety ; Operations management ; Patient safety ; Patient satisfaction ; Perceptions ; Performance evaluation ; Performance indicators ; Principal components analysis ; Professional attitudes ; Professionals ; Quality improvement ; Quality Indicators, Health Care ; Quality of care ; Quality of service ; Questionnaires ; Response rates ; Stakeholders ; Strategic management ; Supervisor-Subordinate interactions ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Usefulness ; Variance analysis</subject><ispartof>International journal of health care quality assurance, 2016-08, Vol.29 (7), p.801-815</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-2c0c6445bf7eff0904819173523075ec425f344d7526634fd39776e62dbdc583</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-2c0c6445bf7eff0904819173523075ec425f344d7526634fd39776e62dbdc583</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJHCQA-12-2015-0142/full/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJHCQA-12-2015-0142/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,961,11614,12825,27901,27902,30976,52661,52664</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27477935$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gu, Xiuzhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Itoh, Kenji</creatorcontrib><title>Performance indicators: healthcare professionals’ views</title><title>International journal of health care quality assurance</title><addtitle>Int J Health Care Qual Assur</addtitle><description>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to capture factors behind professional views of indicator usefulness as a common structure for assessing healthcare performance and their important characteristics to design limited key performance indicators (PIs) for holistic hospital management.
Design/methodology/approach
– Two surveys were conducted using self-administered questionnaires, in which hospital manager/staff respondents were asked to rate the 52 PIs’ usefulness. In total, 228 manager and 894 staff responses were collected.
Findings
– Eight factors were elicited from manager and staff responses as performance measures with 72 percent cumulative variance accounted for. Hospital managers and staff showed similar performance measure perceptions: high-utility acknowledgment on safety, operational efficiency and patient/employee satisfaction but relatively low-employee development concerns. Manager indicator usefulness perceptions were rather homogeneous and significantly higher than staff for almost all performance measures.
Practical implications
– Homogeneous manager views mean that a single key PI set for hospital management may be established regardless of hospital attributes. The following aspects may be measures that should be managed in a healthcare organization based on their key PIs: patient/employee safety, operational efficiency, financial effectiveness and patient/employee satisfaction.
Originality/value
– This is a pilot study on hospital management PIs in Japan. The eight-dimensional factor structure and findings about healthcare provider perceptions may be useful for healthcare management.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Business metrics</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Expenditures</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health & social care</subject><subject>Health administration</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Health service delivery</subject><subject>Health service quality</subject><subject>Hospital administration</subject><subject>Hospital Administrators - psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical Staff, Hospital - psychology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Nosocomial infections</subject><subject>Occupational safety</subject><subject>Operations management</subject><subject>Patient safety</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Performance indicators</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Professional attitudes</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Quality improvement</subject><subject>Quality Indicators, Health Care</subject><subject>Quality of care</subject><subject>Quality of service</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>Strategic management</subject><subject>Supervisor-Subordinate interactions</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Usefulness</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><issn>0952-6862</issn><issn>1758-6542</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9Kw0AQhxdRbK0-gSAFL16iu7N_460UtZWCCr0v6WaWpiRN3W0Vb76Gr-eTmNAqKHgaBr7fj-EbQk4ZvWSMmqvx_Wj4NEgYJECZTCgTsEe6TEuTKClgn3RpKiFRRkGHHMW4oJRyLvUh6YAWWqdcdkn6iMHXocqWDvvFMi9ctq5DvO7PMSvXc5cF7K9C7THGol5mZfx8_-i_FPgaj8mBb3Y82c0emd7eTIejZPJwNx4OJokTRq0TcNQpIeTMa_SeplQYljLNJXCqJToB0nMhci1BKS58zlOtFSrIZ7mThvfIxba2ueJ5g3FtqyI6LMtsifUmWmao4QaAsQY9_4Mu6k1oj7bQCGswmbaFfEu5UMcY0NtVKKosvFlGbSvWbsVaBrYVa1uxTeps172ZVZj_ZL5NNgBsAawwZGX-T-uvd_EvEeGBug</recordid><startdate>20160808</startdate><enddate>20160808</enddate><creator>Gu, Xiuzhu</creator><creator>Itoh, Kenji</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160808</creationdate><title>Performance indicators: healthcare professionals’ views</title><author>Gu, Xiuzhu ; Itoh, Kenji</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c486t-2c0c6445bf7eff0904819173523075ec425f344d7526634fd39776e62dbdc583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Business metrics</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Expenditures</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health & social care</topic><topic>Health administration</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Health service delivery</topic><topic>Health service quality</topic><topic>Hospital administration</topic><topic>Hospital Administrators - psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical Staff, Hospital - psychology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Nosocomial infections</topic><topic>Occupational safety</topic><topic>Operations management</topic><topic>Patient safety</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Performance indicators</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Professional attitudes</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Quality improvement</topic><topic>Quality Indicators, Health Care</topic><topic>Quality of care</topic><topic>Quality of service</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>Strategic management</topic><topic>Supervisor-Subordinate interactions</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Usefulness</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gu, Xiuzhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Itoh, Kenji</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ABI-INFORM Complete</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of health care quality assurance</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gu, Xiuzhu</au><au>Itoh, Kenji</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance indicators: healthcare professionals’ views</atitle><jtitle>International journal of health care quality assurance</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Health Care Qual Assur</addtitle><date>2016-08-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>801</spage><epage>815</epage><pages>801-815</pages><issn>0952-6862</issn><eissn>1758-6542</eissn><abstract>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to capture factors behind professional views of indicator usefulness as a common structure for assessing healthcare performance and their important characteristics to design limited key performance indicators (PIs) for holistic hospital management.
Design/methodology/approach
– Two surveys were conducted using self-administered questionnaires, in which hospital manager/staff respondents were asked to rate the 52 PIs’ usefulness. In total, 228 manager and 894 staff responses were collected.
Findings
– Eight factors were elicited from manager and staff responses as performance measures with 72 percent cumulative variance accounted for. Hospital managers and staff showed similar performance measure perceptions: high-utility acknowledgment on safety, operational efficiency and patient/employee satisfaction but relatively low-employee development concerns. Manager indicator usefulness perceptions were rather homogeneous and significantly higher than staff for almost all performance measures.
Practical implications
– Homogeneous manager views mean that a single key PI set for hospital management may be established regardless of hospital attributes. The following aspects may be measures that should be managed in a healthcare organization based on their key PIs: patient/employee safety, operational efficiency, financial effectiveness and patient/employee satisfaction.
Originality/value
– This is a pilot study on hospital management PIs in Japan. The eight-dimensional factor structure and findings about healthcare provider perceptions may be useful for healthcare management.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><pmid>27477935</pmid><doi>10.1108/IJHCQA-12-2015-0142</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0952-6862 |
ispartof | International journal of health care quality assurance, 2016-08, Vol.29 (7), p.801-815 |
issn | 0952-6862 1758-6542 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_IJHCQA-12-2015-0142 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; Emerald eJournals |
subjects | Adult Business metrics Efficiency Expenditures Female Health & social care Health administration Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Health service delivery Health service quality Hospital administration Hospital Administrators - psychology Humans Male Medical personnel Medical Staff, Hospital - psychology Middle Aged Mortality Nosocomial infections Occupational safety Operations management Patient safety Patient satisfaction Perceptions Performance evaluation Performance indicators Principal components analysis Professional attitudes Professionals Quality improvement Quality Indicators, Health Care Quality of care Quality of service Questionnaires Response rates Stakeholders Strategic management Supervisor-Subordinate interactions Surveys and Questionnaires Usefulness Variance analysis |
title | Performance indicators: healthcare professionals’ views |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T15%3A47%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20indicators:%20healthcare%20professionals%E2%80%99%20views&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20health%20care%20quality%20assurance&rft.au=Gu,%20Xiuzhu&rft.date=2016-08-08&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=801&rft.epage=815&rft.pages=801-815&rft.issn=0952-6862&rft.eissn=1758-6542&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/IJHCQA-12-2015-0142&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E2108838598%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2108838598&rft_id=info:pmid/27477935&rfr_iscdi=true |