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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of health care quality assurance 2016-08, Vol.29 (7), p.801-815
Hauptverfasser: Gu, Xiuzhu, Itoh, Kenji
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ABI-INFORM Complete</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; 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