Use of comparative performance indicators in rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of performance indicators that enable benchmarking between organizations is an important mechanism for accountability, organizational learning, and performance improvement. In the province of Quebec (Canada), 21 rehabilitation organizations developed a common set of performance indicators through interorganizational collaboration. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to describe the rehabilitation organizations' use of a common set of performance indicators and to identify the factors influencing such use. APPROACH: A qualitative survey was performed. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with executives (n = 18) working at 16 rehabilitation organizations using a common set of performance indicators. A thematic analysis of the factors of use was performed according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The use of performance indicators was categorized as purposeful, political, or passive. FINDINGS: Our results showed that all organizations used the common set of performance indicators. Four factors were identified as important to all the rehabilitation organizations to explain their interest in comparative performance indicators: the need to develop their own performance indicators, the compatibility of performance information with organizational needs, complexity/simplicity of performance information, and the support offered by their common association. Sixty-three percent of rehabilitation organizations made purposeful or political use of performance indicators. Three main factors contributed to typify those organizations from the others: the perceived quality of the performance indicators, the leadership of decision makers, and the resources available. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our results showed that use of performance indicators can support the initiation of projects for improving the quality of care. Key recommendations are proposed to decision makers that may enhance performance indicators' use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".