Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28844231›Full record

SynthesisJoint Commission journal on quality and patient safety2017

What Defines a High-Performing Health Care Delivery System: A Systematic Review.

Sangeeta C Ahluwalia, Cheryl L Damberg, Marissa Silverman, Aneesa Motala, Paul G Shekelle

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Barriers to using clinical decision support in ambulatory care: Do clinics in health systems fare better?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Role of Value Stream Mapping in Healthcare Services: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sangeeta C Ahluwalia
Cheryl L Damberg
Marissa Silverman
Aneesa Motala
Paul G Shekelle

Funding

Understanding Health Care Delivery Systems PCOR Adoption and System PerformanceU19HS024067 · AHRQ · RAND CORPORATION · PI DAMBERG, CHERYL · 2015 to 2019
$17.4M
Linking Provider Cost Curves and Care Delivery Practices: Implications for VBPR33AG044252 · NIA · RAND CORPORATION · PI DAMBERG, CHERYL · 2014 to 2016
$2.1M
AHRQ HHS U19 HS024067NIA NIH HHS R33 AG044252
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPurchasers, payers, and policy makers are increasingly measuring and rewarding high-performing health systems, which use a variety of definitions of high performance, yet it is unclear if a consistently applied definition exists. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is a commonly used, agreed-on definition of what constitutes a "high-performing" health care delivery system.

methodsSearches were conducted for English-language articles defining high performance with respect to a health care system or organization in PubMed and WorldCat databases from 2005 to 2015 and the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report from 1999 to 2016. The entity/condition to which the definition was applied was extracted from included articles. The number and type of dimensions used to define high performance within and across articles was tabulated and the number and type of metrics used by performance dimension and by article was calculated.

resultsNo consistent definition of a high-performing health care system or organization was identified. High performance was variably defined across different dimensions, including quality (93% of articles), cost (67%), access (35%), equity (26%), patient experience (21%), and patient safety (18%). Most articles used more than one dimension to define high performance (75%), but only five used five or more dimensions. The most commonly paired dimensions were quality and cost (63%).

conclusionThe absence of a consistent definition of what constitutes high performance and how to measure it hinders our ability to compare and reward health care delivery systems on performance, underscoring the need to develop a consistent definition of high performance.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingDelivery of Health CareHealth ExpendituresHealth Services AccessibilityHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SafetyPatient SatisfactionPolicyQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28844231
PMCPMC8493928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.