Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31915001›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2020

Combining patient, clinical and system perspectives in assessing performance in healthcare: an integrated measurement framework.

Jean-Frederic Levesque, Kim Sutherland

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation of the performance of telephone triage service.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Health System Performance and Resilience in Times of Crisis: An Adapted Conceptual Framework.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Jean-Frederic LevesqueAgency for Clinical Innovation, 67 Albert Avenue, Chatswood, New South Wales, 2067, Australia. jeanfrederic.levesque@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-8593
Kim SutherlandAgency for Clinical Innovation, 67 Albert Avenue, Chatswood, New South Wales, 2067, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe science of measuring and reporting on the performance of healthcare systems is rapidly evolving. In the past decade, across many jurisdictions, organisations tasked with monitoring progress towards reform targets have broadened their purview to take a more system-functioning approach. Their aim is to bring clarity to performance assessment, using relevant and robust concepts - and avoiding reductionist measures - to build a whole-of-system view of performance. Existing performance frameworks are not fully aligned with these developments.

methodsAn eight stage process to develop a conceptual framework incorporated literature review, mapping, categorisation, integration, synthesis and validation of performance constructs that have been used by organisations and researchers in order to assess, reflect and report on healthcare performance.

resultsA total of 19 performance frameworks were identified and included in the review. Existing frameworks mostly adopted either a logic model (inputs, outputs and outcomes), a functional, or a goal-achievement approach. The mapping process identified 110 performance terms and concepts. These were integrated, synthesised and resynthesised to produce a framework that features 12 derived constructs reflecting combinations of patients' needs and expectations; healthcare resources and structures; receipt and experience of healthcare services; healthcare processes, functions and context; and healthcare outcomes. The 12 constructs gauge performance in terms of coverage, accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness, safety, productivity, efficiency, impact, sustainability, resilience, adaptability and equity. They reflect four performance perspectives (patient, population, delivery organisation and system).

conclusionsInternationally, healthcare systems and researchers have used a variety of terms to categorise indicators of healthcare performance, however few frameworks are based on a theoretically-based conceptual underpinning. The proposed framework incorporates a manageable number of performance domains that together provide a comprehensive assessment, as well as conceptual and operational clarity and coherence that support multifaceted measurement systems for healthcare.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareConceptual frameworkPerformance measurementQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31915001
PMCPMC6950882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.