Board quality scorecards

Measuring improvement

Christine A. Goeschel, Sean Berenholtz, Richard A. Culbertson, Linda Jin, Peter J. Pronovost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Board accountability for quality and patient safety is widely accepted but the science for how to measure it is immature, and differences between measuring performance, identifying hazards, and monitoring progress are often misunderstood. Hospital leaders often provide scorecards to assist boards with their oversight role yet, in the absence of national standards, little evidence exists regarding which measures are valid and useful to boards to assess quality improvement. The authors describe results of a cross-sectional board study, identifying the measures used to monitor quality. The measures varied widely and many were of uncertain validity, generally identifying hazards rather than measuring rates. This article identifies some important policy implications regarding boards' oversight of quality and acknowledges existing limits to how we can measure quality and safety progress on the national or hospital level. If boards and their hospitals are to monitor progress in improving quality, they need more valid outcome measures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)254-260
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Medical Quality
Volume26
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2011

Fingerprint

Social Responsibility
Patient Safety
Quality Improvement
Cross-Sectional Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Safety

Keywords

  • hospital boards
  • measuring improvement
  • quality and patient safety
  • quality scorecards

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Goeschel, C. A., Berenholtz, S., Culbertson, R. A., Jin, L., & Pronovost, P. J. (2011). Board quality scorecards: Measuring improvement. American Journal of Medical Quality, 26(4), 254-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860610389324

Board quality scorecards : Measuring improvement. / Goeschel, Christine A.; Berenholtz, Sean; Culbertson, Richard A.; Jin, Linda; Pronovost, Peter J.

In: American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 26, No. 4, 07.2011, p. 254-260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Goeschel, CA, Berenholtz, S, Culbertson, RA, Jin, L & Pronovost, PJ 2011, 'Board quality scorecards: Measuring improvement', American Journal of Medical Quality, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 254-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860610389324
Goeschel, Christine A. ; Berenholtz, Sean ; Culbertson, Richard A. ; Jin, Linda ; Pronovost, Peter J. / Board quality scorecards : Measuring improvement. In: American Journal of Medical Quality. 2011 ; Vol. 26, No. 4. pp. 254-260.
@article{a0fe5472f8864a1c9302c846e1f8a6ac,
title = "Board quality scorecards: Measuring improvement",
abstract = "Board accountability for quality and patient safety is widely accepted but the science for how to measure it is immature, and differences between measuring performance, identifying hazards, and monitoring progress are often misunderstood. Hospital leaders often provide scorecards to assist boards with their oversight role yet, in the absence of national standards, little evidence exists regarding which measures are valid and useful to boards to assess quality improvement. The authors describe results of a cross-sectional board study, identifying the measures used to monitor quality. The measures varied widely and many were of uncertain validity, generally identifying hazards rather than measuring rates. This article identifies some important policy implications regarding boards' oversight of quality and acknowledges existing limits to how we can measure quality and safety progress on the national or hospital level. If boards and their hospitals are to monitor progress in improving quality, they need more valid outcome measures.",
keywords = "hospital boards, measuring improvement, quality and patient safety, quality scorecards",
author = "Goeschel, {Christine A.} and Sean Berenholtz and Culbertson, {Richard A.} and Linda Jin and Pronovost, {Peter J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1177/1062860610389324",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "254--260",
journal = "American Journal of Medical Quality",
issn = "1062-8606",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Board quality scorecards

T2 - Measuring improvement

AU - Goeschel, Christine A.

AU - Berenholtz, Sean

AU - Culbertson, Richard A.

AU - Jin, Linda

AU - Pronovost, Peter J.

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - Board accountability for quality and patient safety is widely accepted but the science for how to measure it is immature, and differences between measuring performance, identifying hazards, and monitoring progress are often misunderstood. Hospital leaders often provide scorecards to assist boards with their oversight role yet, in the absence of national standards, little evidence exists regarding which measures are valid and useful to boards to assess quality improvement. The authors describe results of a cross-sectional board study, identifying the measures used to monitor quality. The measures varied widely and many were of uncertain validity, generally identifying hazards rather than measuring rates. This article identifies some important policy implications regarding boards' oversight of quality and acknowledges existing limits to how we can measure quality and safety progress on the national or hospital level. If boards and their hospitals are to monitor progress in improving quality, they need more valid outcome measures.

AB - Board accountability for quality and patient safety is widely accepted but the science for how to measure it is immature, and differences between measuring performance, identifying hazards, and monitoring progress are often misunderstood. Hospital leaders often provide scorecards to assist boards with their oversight role yet, in the absence of national standards, little evidence exists regarding which measures are valid and useful to boards to assess quality improvement. The authors describe results of a cross-sectional board study, identifying the measures used to monitor quality. The measures varied widely and many were of uncertain validity, generally identifying hazards rather than measuring rates. This article identifies some important policy implications regarding boards' oversight of quality and acknowledges existing limits to how we can measure quality and safety progress on the national or hospital level. If boards and their hospitals are to monitor progress in improving quality, they need more valid outcome measures.

KW - hospital boards

KW - measuring improvement

KW - quality and patient safety

KW - quality scorecards

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960214764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960214764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1062860610389324

DO - 10.1177/1062860610389324

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 254

EP - 260

JO - American Journal of Medical Quality

JF - American Journal of Medical Quality

SN - 1062-8606

IS - 4

ER -