Nationwide continuous quality improvement using clinical indicators: the Danish National Indicator Project.

OBJECTIVE In most countries there is no mandatory national system to track the quality of care delivered to the citizens. This paper describes an example of a national indicator project that aims at documenting and improving the quality of care nationwide. ANALYSIS The Danish National Indicator Project was established in 2000 as a nationwide multidisciplinary quality improvement project. From 2000 to 2002, disease-specific clinical indicators and standards were developed for six diseases (stroke, hip fracture, schizophrenia, acute gastrointestinal surgery, heart failure, and lung cancer). Indicators and standards have been implemented in all clinical units and departments in Denmark treating patients with the six diseases, and participation is mandatory. All clinical units and departments receive their results every month. National and regional audit processes are organized to explain the results and to prepare implementation of improvements. All results are published in order to inform the public, and to give patients and relatives the opportunity to make informed choices. CONCLUSION The surveillance of health care quality is greatly aided by the use of relevant quantitative indicators. This paper describes how it is possible to organize nationwide monitoring using clinical indicators.

[1]  A Donabedian,et al.  The quality of medical care. , 1978, Science.

[2]  R. Palmer,et al.  Individual and Institutional Variables Which May Serve as Indicators of Quality of Medical Care , 1979, Medical care.

[3]  L. Iezzoni 100 Apples Divided by 15 Red Herrings: A Cautionary Tale from the Mid-19th Century on Comparing Hospital Mortality Rates , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  L I Iezzoni,et al.  The risks of risk adjustment. , 1997, JAMA.

[5]  R. Thomson,et al.  Maryland Hospital Quality Indicator Project in the United Kingdom: an approach for promoting continuous quality improvement. , 1997, Quality in health care : QHC.

[6]  E. McGlynn,et al.  The outcomes utility index: will outcomes data tell us what we want to know? , 1998, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[7]  E. McGlynn,et al.  How good is the quality of health care in the United States? , 1998, The Milbank quarterly.

[8]  M. Chassin,et al.  The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. , 1998, JAMA.

[9]  R. Palmer,et al.  Using health outcomes data to compare plans, networks and providers. , 1998, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[10]  E. McGlynn,et al.  Developing a clinical performance measure. , 1998, American journal of preventive medicine.

[11]  H R Rubin,et al.  From a process of care to a measure: the development and testing of a quality indicator. , 2001, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[12]  H R Rubin,et al.  The advantages and disadvantages of process-based measures of health care quality. , 2001, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[13]  J. Mant Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. , 2001, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[14]  J. Mainz Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. , 2003, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[15]  Jan Mainz,et al.  Developing evidence-based clinical indicators: a state of the art methods primer. , 2003, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.