Catalogo Articoli (Spogli Riviste)

OPAC HELP

Titolo:
Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care
Autore:
Mant, J;
Indirizzi:
Univ Birmingham, Sch Med, Dept Primary Care & Gen Practice, Birmingham B152TT, W Midlands, England Univ Birmingham Birmingham W Midlands England B152TT W Midlands, England
Titolo Testata:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE
fascicolo: 6, volume: 13, anno: 2001,
pagine: 475 - 480
SICI:
1353-4505(200112)13:6<475:PVOIIT>2.0.ZU;2-Y
Fonte:
ISI
Lingua:
ENG
Soggetto:
CORONARY HEART-DISEASE; ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; MORTALITY; PERFORMANCE; MEDICINE; SURGEONS; DECLINE; SHIPMAN; STROKE; RATES;
Keywords:
clinical competence; medical audit; outcome and process measurement (health care); quality assurance;
Tipo documento:
Article
Natura:
Periodico
Settore Disciplinare:
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Citazioni:
32
Recensione:
Indirizzi per estratti:
Indirizzo: Mant, J Univ Birmingham, Sch Med, Dept Primary Care & Gen Practice, Birmingham B152TT, W Midlands, England Univ Birmingham Birmingham W Midlands England B15 2TT ds, England
Citazione:
J. Mant, "Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care", INT J QUAL, 13(6), 2001, pp. 475-480

Abstract

This paper reviews the relative strengths and weaknesses of outcome and process measures as performance indicators in health care. Differences in outcome may be due to case mix, how the data were collected, chance, or quality of care. Health care is only one determinant of health and other factors have important effects on health outcomes, such as nutrition, environment, lifestyle and poverty. The advantages of process measures are that they aremore sensitive to differences in the quality of care and they are direct measures of quality. However, outcome measures are of greater intrinsic interest and can reflect all aspects of care, including those that are otherwise difficult to measure such as technical expertise and operator skill. Outcome indicators can be improved if efforts are made to standardize data collection and case mix adjustment systems are developed and validated. It is argued that this is worth doing only where it is likely that variations in health care might lead to significant variations in health outcome and wherethe occurrence of the outcome is sufficiently common that the outcome indicator will have the power to detect real differences in quality. If these conditions are not met, then alternative strategies such as process measurement and risk management techniques may be more effective at protecting the public from poor quality care.

ASDD Area Sistemi Dipartimentali e Documentali, Università di Bologna, Catalogo delle riviste ed altri periodici
Documento generato il 23/01/20 alle ore 07:08:04