Use of comparative performance indicators in rehabilitation

Diana Zidarov, Lise Poissant and Claude Sicotte ()
Additional contact information
Lise Poissant: Environm Canada, Fluvial Ecosyst Res, Aquat Ecosyst Protect Res Div, Water Sci & Technol Directorate, Montreal, PQ H2Y 2E7, Canada
Claude Sicotte: EA MOS - EA Management des Organisations de Santé - EHESP - École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] - PRES Sorbonne Paris Cité, EHESP - École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP], IDM - Institut du Management - EHESP - École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP]

Post-Print from HAL

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.

Keywords: benchmarking; decision makers; performance indicators; quality improvement; rehabilitation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017-06
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Health Care Management Review, 2017, 42 (2), pp.142 - 150. ⟨10.1097/HMR.0000000000000099⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01519846

DOI: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000099

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().