Publicatie datum

The implementation of quality management systems in hospitals: a comparison between three countries.

Wagner, C., Gulácsi, L., Takacs, E., Outinen, M. The implementation of quality management systems in hospitals: a comparison between three countries. BMC Health Services Research: 2006, 6(1)
Lees online
Is the implementation of Quality Management (QM) in health care proceeding satisfactorily and can national health care policies influence the implementation process? Policymakers and researchers in a country need to know the answer to this question. Cross country comparisons can reveal whether sufficient progress is being made and how this can be stimulated. The objective of the study was to investigate agreement and disparities in the implementation of QMS between The Netherlands, Hungary and Finland with respect to the evaluation model used and the national policy strategy of the three countries. Methods: The study has a cross sectional design, based on measurements in 2000. Empirical data about QM-activities in hospitals were gathered by a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaires were answered by the directors of the hospitals or the quality coordinators. The analyses are based on data from 101 hospitals in the Netherlands, 116 hospitals in Hungary and 59 hospitals in Finland. Outcome measures are the developmental stage of the Quality Management System (QMS), the development within five focal areas, and distinct QM-activities which were listed in the questionnaire. Results: A mean of 22 QM-activities per hospital was found in the Netherlands and Finland versus 20 QM-activities in Hungarian hospitals. Only a small number of hospitals has already implemented a QMS (4% in The Netherlands, 0% in Hungary and 3% in Finland). More hospitals in the Netherlands are concentrating on quality documents, whereas Finnish hospitals are concentrating on training in QM and guidelines. Cyclic quality improvement activities have been developed in the three countries, but in most hospitals the results were not used for improvements. All three countries pay hardly any attention to patient participation. Conclusions: The study demonstrates that the implementation of QM-activities can be measured at national level and that differences between countries can be assessed. The hypothesis that governmental legislation or financial reimbursement can stimulate the implementation of QM-activities, more than voluntary recommendations, could not be confirmed. However, the results show that specific obligations can stimulate the implementation of QM-activities more than general, framework legislation. (aut. ref.)