CEO; project coordinator Patient Safety; professor 'Patient safety' at VU University / Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands
Publicatie
Publication date
A measuring instrument for evaluation of quality systems.
Wagner, C., Bakker, D.H. de, Groenewegen, P.P. A measuring instrument for evaluation of quality systems. International Journal for Quality in Health Care: 1999, 11(2), p. 119-130
Read online
Objective: To develop an instrument for provider organizations, consumers, purchasers, and policy makers to measure and compare the development of quality systems in provider organizations. Design: Cross-sectional study of provider organizations using a structured questionnaire to survey
managers. Setting: The Netherlands. Study participants: Provider organizations of six health care fields: primary health care, care for the disabled, mental health care, care for the elderly, hospital care and welfare care. Main measures: Existence of quality assurance and quality improvement activities. Results: The study presents a survey instrument for assessing the quality assurance and improvement activities of health care provider organizations and the developmental stage of quality
systems. The survey instrument distinguishes five local areas for quality improvement activities and four developmental stages. The study also reports data on the reliability and validity of the survey instrument. Conclusion: The instrument is reliable, easy to administer, and useful across health care fields as well as different kinds of organizations. Developing quality systems provide a common language across all parts of the health care sector. By assigning the activities to focal areas and
developmental stages the instrument gives insight into the implementations of quality systems in health care. Comparable information on quality assurance activities increases the accountability of providers. Because of the efficient (not time consuming) approach, the instrument complements
existing accreditation reviews. (aut.ref.)
managers. Setting: The Netherlands. Study participants: Provider organizations of six health care fields: primary health care, care for the disabled, mental health care, care for the elderly, hospital care and welfare care. Main measures: Existence of quality assurance and quality improvement activities. Results: The study presents a survey instrument for assessing the quality assurance and improvement activities of health care provider organizations and the developmental stage of quality
systems. The survey instrument distinguishes five local areas for quality improvement activities and four developmental stages. The study also reports data on the reliability and validity of the survey instrument. Conclusion: The instrument is reliable, easy to administer, and useful across health care fields as well as different kinds of organizations. Developing quality systems provide a common language across all parts of the health care sector. By assigning the activities to focal areas and
developmental stages the instrument gives insight into the implementations of quality systems in health care. Comparable information on quality assurance activities increases the accountability of providers. Because of the efficient (not time consuming) approach, the instrument complements
existing accreditation reviews. (aut.ref.)
Objective: To develop an instrument for provider organizations, consumers, purchasers, and policy makers to measure and compare the development of quality systems in provider organizations. Design: Cross-sectional study of provider organizations using a structured questionnaire to survey
managers. Setting: The Netherlands. Study participants: Provider organizations of six health care fields: primary health care, care for the disabled, mental health care, care for the elderly, hospital care and welfare care. Main measures: Existence of quality assurance and quality improvement activities. Results: The study presents a survey instrument for assessing the quality assurance and improvement activities of health care provider organizations and the developmental stage of quality
systems. The survey instrument distinguishes five local areas for quality improvement activities and four developmental stages. The study also reports data on the reliability and validity of the survey instrument. Conclusion: The instrument is reliable, easy to administer, and useful across health care fields as well as different kinds of organizations. Developing quality systems provide a common language across all parts of the health care sector. By assigning the activities to focal areas and
developmental stages the instrument gives insight into the implementations of quality systems in health care. Comparable information on quality assurance activities increases the accountability of providers. Because of the efficient (not time consuming) approach, the instrument complements
existing accreditation reviews. (aut.ref.)
managers. Setting: The Netherlands. Study participants: Provider organizations of six health care fields: primary health care, care for the disabled, mental health care, care for the elderly, hospital care and welfare care. Main measures: Existence of quality assurance and quality improvement activities. Results: The study presents a survey instrument for assessing the quality assurance and improvement activities of health care provider organizations and the developmental stage of quality
systems. The survey instrument distinguishes five local areas for quality improvement activities and four developmental stages. The study also reports data on the reliability and validity of the survey instrument. Conclusion: The instrument is reliable, easy to administer, and useful across health care fields as well as different kinds of organizations. Developing quality systems provide a common language across all parts of the health care sector. By assigning the activities to focal areas and
developmental stages the instrument gives insight into the implementations of quality systems in health care. Comparable information on quality assurance activities increases the accountability of providers. Because of the efficient (not time consuming) approach, the instrument complements
existing accreditation reviews. (aut.ref.)
