The Dutch health care performance report: seven years of health care performance assessment in the Netherlands

In 2006, the first edition of a monitoring tool for the performance of the Dutch health care system was released: the Dutch Health Care Performance Report (DHCPR). The Netherlands was among the first countries in the world developing such a comprehensive tool for reporting performance on quality, access, and affordability of health care. The tool contains 125 performance indicators; the choice for specific indicators resulted from a dialogue between researchers and policy makers. In the ‘policy cycle’, the DHCPR can rationally be placed between evaluation (accountability) and agenda-setting (for strategic decision making). In this paper, we reflect on important lessons learned after seven years of health care system performance assessment. These lessons entail the importance of a good conceptual framework for health system performance assessment, the importance of repeated measurement, the strength of combining multiple perspectives (e.g., patient, professional, objective, subjective) on the same issue, the importance of a central role for the patients’ perspective in performance assessment, how to deal with the absence of data in relevant domains, the value of international benchmarking and the continuous exchange between researchers and policy makers.

[1]  O A Arah,et al.  Conceptual frameworks for health systems performance: a quest for effectiveness, quality, and improvement. , 2003, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[2]  G. Westert,et al.  The Netherlands: regulated competition behind the dykes? , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  C. Hood A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS , 1991 .

[4]  Gert P. Westert,et al.  Dutch Health Care Performance Report , 2006 .

[5]  N. Klazinga,et al.  Health services research related to performance indicators and benchmarking in Europe , 2011, Journal of health services research & policy.

[6]  M. Howlett,et al.  Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems , 1996 .

[7]  N. Black,et al.  Evidence based policy: proceed with care. , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Lisa Rogers,et al.  Overview, History, and Objectives of Performance Measurement , 2001, Health care financing review.

[9]  K. Walshe,et al.  Health systems and policy research in Europe: Horizon 2020 , 2013, The Lancet.

[10]  D. Istance Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development , 1966, Nature.

[11]  Irene Papanicolas,et al.  Performance measurement for health system improvement : experiences, challenges and prospects , 2010 .

[12]  Niek S Klazinga,et al.  Resolving the challenges in the international comparison of health systems: the must do's and the trade-offs. , 2013, Health policy.

[13]  Union Européenne,et al.  Health at a Glance: Europe 2020 , 2020, Health at a Glance: Europe.

[14]  O A Arah,et al.  Developing a national performance indicator framework for the Dutch health system. , 2004, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[15]  G. Westert,et al.  Dutch Health Care Performance Report 2008 , 2008 .

[16]  M. Piotrowicz,et al.  [The Tallinn Charter: health systems for health and wealth]. , 2009, Przeglad epidemiologiczny.

[17]  H. Davies,et al.  Using Evidence: How research can inform public services , 2007 .

[18]  J. Veillard Performance management in health systems and services: Studies on its development and use at international, national/jurisdictional, and hospital levels , 2012 .

[19]  Réjean Landry,et al.  The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies , 2003 .