Table 1.
Classification of indicators by Organizational, Clinical process, and Outcome (Obligatory and Voluntary).
Table 2.
Characteristics of the study population.
Figure 1.
Overall perspectives of hospital staff on organizational, clinical process, and outcome indicators.
Figure 1 shows the reported utilization rates for each of the indicator groups, which were: organizational indicators (75%), clinical process indicators (57%), clinical effectiveness indicators (66%), patient safety indicators (72%), and patient centeredness indicators (86%). Around 80% of respondents valued the indicators as (very) important and more than 89% of them reported sufficient scientific background for indicators. Data were reported to be available for indicators by at least 75% of respondents. Data collection was judged to be feasible by 96%, 89%, and 94% of respondents for organizational, clinical process and outcome indicators respectively. However, the availability of personnel and cost benefit aspects of indicators was judged to be sufficient by more than 80% of respondents. In figure 1: OR = Organizational indicators CP = Clinical process indicators CE = Clinical effectiveness indicators PS = Patient safety indicators PC = Patient centeredness indicators
Table 3.
The perspectives of hospital staff on organizational indicators (Obligatory and Voluntary).
Table 4.
The perspectives of hospital staff on clinical process indicators (Obligatory and Voluntary).
Table 5.
The perspectives of hospital staff on outcome indicators (related to clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient centeredness; Obligatory and Voluntary).
Figure 2.
The perspectives of managerial, clinical and other staff on organizational, clinical process, and outcome quality indicators.
Figure 2 shows that clinical staff reported significantly higher utilization rates than managerial staff, i.e.: organizational indicators (80% versus 71%), clinical process indicators (64% versus 51%), clinical effectiveness indicators (75% versus 58%) and patient safety indicators (81% versus 66%). Both groups reported more or less equal use of patient centeredness indicators. There were about equally large (significant) differences among managerial and clinical staff in the level of perceived importance of indicators. However, both groups rated organizational and clinical outcome indicators as most important. Both clinical and managerial staff rated the scientific background of all indicators relatively high. Clinical staff rated data availability for the organizational, clinical process, and outcome indicators significantly higher than managerial staff..Professional personnel for measuring organizational, clinical process and outcome indicators were thought to be available by 90%, 87% and 90% of clinical staff versus 84%, 74% and 80% by managerial staff. In figure(s) 2: M = Managerial staff C = Clinical staff O = Other staff