Classifying indicators of quality: a collaboration between Dutch and English regulators.

INTRODUCTION Many approaches to measuring quality in healthcare exist, generally employing indicators or metrics. While there are important differences, most of these approaches share three key areas of measurement: safety, effectiveness and patient experience. The European Partnership for Supervisory Organisations in Health Services and Social Care (EPSO) exists as a working group and discussion forum for European regulators. This group undertook to identify a common framework within which European approaches to indicators could be compared. APPROACH A framework was developed to classify indicators, using four sets of criteria: conceptualization of quality, Donabedian definition (structure, process, outcome), data type (derivable, collectable from routine sources, special collections, samples) and data use (judgement (singular or part of framework) benchmarking, risk assessment). Indicators from English and Dutch hospital measurement programmes were put into the framework, showing areas of agreement and levels of comparability. In the first instance, results are only illustrative. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The EPSO has been a powerful driver for undertaking cross-European research, and this project is the first of many to take advantage of the access to international expertize. It has shown that through development of a framework that deconstructs national indicators, commonalities can be identified. Future work will attempt to incorporate other nations' indicators, and attempt cross-national comparison.

[1]  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.

[2]  Rowena Jacobs,et al.  Public Services: are composite measures a robust reflection of performance in the public sector? , 2006 .

[3]  Rourke Aj Evaluating the quality of medical care. , 1957, Hospital progress.

[4]  Donald M. Berwick,et al.  Connections Between Quality Measurement and Improvement , 2003, Medical care.

[5]  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.

[6]  Ruth Thorlby,et al.  High Quality Care For All , 2008 .

[7]  Jeroan J Allison,et al.  Identifying achievable benchmarks of care: concepts and methodology. , 1998, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[8]  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.

[9]  C. Hood,et al.  What's measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system , 2006 .

[10]  D M Eddy,et al.  Performance measurement: problems and solutions. , 1998, Health affairs.

[11]  G Mosser,et al.  The three faces of performance measurement: improvement, accountability, and research. , 1997, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[12]  D J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Using routine intelligence to target inspection of healthcare providers in England , 2009, Quality & Safety in Health Care.