Quality indicators in health care systems: National Resources Focus on Results, Processes and Productivity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction. Measuring the quality of health care in a country is one of the essential features of health quality improvement systems.The Aim of the Study. Studying the experience of countries with strong economies in monitoring and evaluating the quality of health care, comparing with domestic experience in this area. Materials and methods. The results of a review of English-language sites with data on measuring clinical indicators in the UK, Canada and the USA and websites of the national healthcare system (Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Center for Medical Statistics of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, State Expert Center of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, National Health Service of Ukraine) are given. Results and discussion. It was found that in all countries with the data analyzed in our work, the tasks of continuous improvement of the quality of health care are solved due to the connection with clinical recommendations, state support for the processes of measuring the health care quality, the provision of software for calculations and the transparency of the definition of indicators. Since 2018, parallel processes have been going on in the domestic healthcare system: а) clinical quality indicators are approved as part of industry standards in healthcare; b) indicators demonstrating the volumes of medical care are collected and processed by the Center for Medical Statistics of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, c) The National Health Service of Ukraine generates special indicators based on the data of providers and users of medical services, processes, analyzes and publishes anonymized open data in the Unified State Open Data Web Portal in the form of special dashboards; these indicators are partly relevant to clinical indicators of quality. Сonclusions: Based on a comparison of the indicators used by different countries, the connection of quality indicators with evidence-based data, further steps of a systematic approach in the field of improving the quality of medical care are determined, since the main tool for monitoring and evaluating medical care are special indicators - quality indicators. These indicators are calculated retrospectively according to standardized methods defined at the national level, which contributes to the transparency and accountability of health care. At the same time, the connection with evidence and clinical guidelines, software, templates and calculation formulas, scope and limitations, etc. are clearly defined and easily accessible, the number and types of indicators vary from country to country. In healthcare institutions, indicators are calculated using information technology based on patient data, focusing on aspects of the quality of care such as effectiveness and productivity. A systematic improvement in the quality of health care in practice can be achieved due to the relevance of the indicators calculated in the electronic health system with the evidence-based provisions of national clinical recommendations and the requirements of industry standards in the field of healthcare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,052 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».