Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35478929›Full record

ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2022

Selecting Performance Indicators and Targets in Health Care: An International Scoping Review and Standardized Process Framework.

Michael A Heenan, Glen E Randall, Jenna M Evans

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Multiple case study of processes used by hospitals to select performance indicators: do they align with best practices?International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Michael A HeenanDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7482-3830
Glen E RandallDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3169-3922
Jenna M EvansDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3104-9889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Health care organizations monitor hundreds of performance indicators. It is unclear what processes and criteria organizations use to identify the indicators they use, who is involved in these processes, how performance targets are set, and what the impacts of these processes are. The purpose of this study is to synthesize international approaches to indicator selection and develop a standardized process framework. Methods: Using the PubMed and Web of Science search engines, a scoping review of peer reviewed and grey literature following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted to identify documents describing indicator selection processes used by health systems. English-language papers from 11 countries published from 2010 to 2020 were included. Papers were thematically analyzed to develop a standardized process framework. Results: The review included 33 peer-reviewed papers and 11 grey-literature documents. While there are common practices used in health care to select indicators, no single standardized process framework for indicator selection exists. Arbitrary or incomplete indicator selection processes risk over-measurement, lack of alignment with strategic and operational goals, lack of support by end-users, and paralyzed decision-making ability. By consolidating international practices, we developed the 5-P indicator selection process framework to mitigate process risks and support high-quality indicator selection processes. Conclusion: The 5-P indicator selection process framework consists of five domains and 17 elements, and offers health care agencies a practical structure they can use to design indicator selection processes. The framework also provides researchers with a basis by which the implementation of these processes may be evaluated.

Indexed as

hospitalsperformance indicatorsperformance measurementprocess frameworkqualitytargets

Identifiers

PMID35478929
PMCPMC9038160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.