BMJ  2007;335:1055-1056 (24 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.39359.605752.80 (published 29 October 2007)

Editorials

Defining a high performance healthcare organisation

Composite measures of performance are insufficient on their own

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Why are high performing healthcare organisations so hard to find? In this week's BMJ, Wilson and colleagues report a study that evaluates 69 facilities in 30 US states that receive categorical funding for HIV services.¹ The authors assessed performance using a bundle of eight clinical measures considered by a panel of experts to represent high quality of care for HIV. They found that few organisations scored highly across more than a handful of measures.

Interpreting the results at face value suggests that these facilities are not performing well, and that their organisations do not support strong systems of care for people living with HIV. We would expect all clinics to provide comprehensive elements of care that have been shown to improve patients' outcomes. However, closer scrutiny of the study raises methodological and theoretical questions about the selection and measurement of the indicators and, importantly, the association between overall performance . . . [Full text of this article]

New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute, New York, NY 10025, USA

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Careful what you measure

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2007 335: 0. [Extract] [Full Text]

Correlations among measures of quality in HIV care in the United States: cross sectional study

Ira B Wilson, Bruce E Landon, Peter V Marsden, Lisa R Hirschhorn, Keith McInnes, Lin Ding, and Paul D Cleary
BMJ 2007 335: 1085. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]