Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Indicator Set (indicator + set)
Selected AbstractsThe four-capital method of sustainable development evaluationENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND GOVERNANCE, Issue 2 2008Paul Ekins Abstract This paper is part of the special issue of European Environment devoted to the outputs of the EU SRDTOOLS project,1 which developed and applied a new model of regional sustainable development evaluation. The paper introduces the concept and framework of the four-capital model, which was used in the project. First it discusses some issues around sustainable development evaluation, before introducing the theory of the four-capital model. It then describes how indicators can be used to evaluate programmes such as those financed by the EU Structural Funds against criteria for sustainable regional development in terms of the four capitals. An ,ideal' indicator set is listed in the appendix. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [source] Developing health indicators for people with intellectual disabilities.JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY RESEARCH, Issue 6 2007The method of the Pomona project Abstract Aim Recently, attention has focused on the health inequalities experienced by people with intellectual disabilities (ID) when compared with the general population. To inform policies aimed at equalizing health opportunities, comparable evidence is needed about the aspects of their health that may be amenable to intervention. Method Applying the framework of the European Community Health Indicators (ECHI) for the general population, the Pomona group developed a set of health indicators reflecting aspects of the health of people with ID: socio-demographic data, health status, health determinants and health systems. Results This paper documents the procedures that partners carried out in 13 European countries. The process comprised a search for evidence in published literature; consultation with advocates, family members and health professionals; and analyses of national and international databases. Indicators were selected if they were appraised as important, useful, measurable and if resulting data would enable comparisons between the health of people with ID and that of the general population. Conclusion The thus developed indicator set that is aligned with ECHI will permit investigators to compare key aspects of health of people with ID with those of people in the general population within Europe. The final set of 18 indicators will be applied in the Pomona 2 project (2005,08) to gather information about the health of samples of adults in 14 participating European countries. [source] EU sustainable development indicators: An overviewNATURAL RESOURCES FORUM, Issue 4 2005Laure Ledoux Abstract The European Union's commitment to sustainable development at the 1992 Earth Summit resulted in an EU-wide sustainable development strategy, adopted in Gothenburg in 2001. This article presents an overview of the set of sustainable development indicators (SDIs) recently adopted by the European Commission to monitor, assess and revise the strategy. It provides a critical assessment of the current status of the indicator set, and reviews the main policy trends in the areas of the strategy through a brief analysis of headline indicators, placing energy and climate change issues in a broader perspective. Finally, the article compares the energy SDIs to the recent inter-agency energy indicators for sustainable development (EISD), underlining their similarities as well as their different priorities and objectives. The article concludes that further research is needed to improve the SDI set and further explore the linkages between themes. [source] EARLY EXPERIENCE WITH CLINICAL INDICATORS IN SURGERYANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Issue 6 2000B. T. Collopy Background: In 1997 a set of 53 clinical indicators developed by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) and the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) Care Evaluation Programme (CEP), was introduced into the ACHS Evaluation and Quality Improvement Programme (EQuIP). The clinical indicators covered 20 different conditions or procedures for eight specialty groups and were designed to act as flags to possible problems in surgical care. Methods: The development process took several years and included a literature review, field testing, and revision of the indicators prior to approval by the College council. In their first year 155 health-care organizations (HCO) addressed the indicators and this rose to 210 in 1998. Data were received from all states and both public and private facilities. Results: The collected data for 1997 and 1998 for some of the indicators revealed rates which were comparable with those reported in the international literature. For example, the rates of bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy were 0.7 and 0.53%, respectively; the mortality rates for coronary artery graft surgery were 2.5 and 2.1%, respectively; the mortality rates after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair were 2.5 and 3.7%, respectively; and the post-tonsillectomy reactionary haemorrhage rates were 0.9 and 1.3%, respectively. Results for some indicators differed appreciably from other reports, flagging the need for further investigation; for example, the negative histology rates for appendectomy in children were 18.6 and 21.2%, respectively, and the rates for completeness of excision of malignant skin tumours were 90.7 and 90%, respectively. The significance of these figures, however, depends upon validation of the data and their reliability and reproducibility. Because reliability can be finally determined only at the hospital level they are of limited value for broader comparison. Conclusion: The process of review established for the indicator set has led to refinement of some indicators through improvement of definitions, and to a considerable reduction in the number of indicators to 29 (covering 18 procedures), for the second version of the indicators (which was introduced for use from January 1999). The clinical indicator programme, as it has with other disciplines, hopefully will provide a stimulus to the modification and improvement of surgical practice. Clinician ownership should enhance the collection of reliable data and hence their usefulness. [source] The conceptual relationship between health indicators and quality of life: results from the cross-cultural analysis of the EUROHIS field studyCLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY (AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY & PRACTICE), Issue 1 2005Silke Schmidt The aim of this study was to determine the performance of various health indicators to predict quality of life, mental health and general health from a conceptual point of view. The EUROHIS study (see Nosikov and Gudex, 2003) includes a broad range of health care and health behaviour related indicators, such as preventive care, health care utilization, use of medicine, physical health, mental health, alcohol consumption, physical activity and quality of life. Data on various health indicators and quality of life were collected from 10 countries, amounting to a sample size of 4849 (2750 females and 2099 males). An analytical approach was employed to investigate the interrelationship between indicators of each particular indicator set (such as alcohol consumption) and between conceptually different indicator sets. Regression analyses as well as structural equation modelling were employed, pooled across all countries as well as separately for different groups of countries. Findings indicate a higher extent of cross-cultural variation in health behaviour and the QOL measures than in mental health and physical health. In regression analyses, results showed strong and consistent effects of various health behaviour indicators to predict quality of life (R2 = 0.48), mental health (R2 = 0.48) or general health (R2 = 0.45). However, a differential effect of socio-demographic variables, in particular education, and health behavioural determinants was found in different groups of countries. In the structural equation modelling, good fit indices were observed for the model determining physical and mental health factors by different health behaviour factors. Findings suggest that quality of life rather mediates mental outcomes in this particular set of health indicators in a European sample than functions as an outcome variable. However, it was not possible to include sociodemographic data in the whole model but only in each of the latent factors. This finding still requires replication, both in different clinical groups and in longitudinal data.,Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Measuring the quality of hospital care: an inventory of indicatorsINTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, Issue 6 2009B. Copnell Abstract Background: Development of indicators to measure health-care quality has progressed rapidly. This development has, however, rarely occurred in a systematic fashion, and some aspects of care have received more attention than others. The aim of this study is to identify and classify indicators currently in use to measure the quality of care provided by hospitals, and to identify gaps in current measurement. Methods: A literature search was undertaken to identify indicator sets. Indicators were included if they related to hospital care and were clearly being collected and reported to an external body. A two-person independent review was undertaken to classify indicators according to aspects of care provision (structure, process or outcome), dimensions of quality (safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient-centredness and equity), and domain of application (hospital-wide, surgical and non-surgical clinical specialities). Results: 383 discrete indicators were identified from 22 source organizations or projects. Of these, 27.2% were relevant hospital-wide, 26.1% to surgical patients and 46.7% to non-surgical specialities, departments or diseases. Cardiothoracic surgery, cardiology and mental health were the specialities with greatest coverage, while nine clinical specialities had fewer than three specific indicators. Processes of care were measured by 54.0% of indicators and outcomes by 38.9%. Safety and effectiveness were the domains most frequently represented, with relatively few indicators measuring the other dimensions. Conclusion: Despite the large number of available indicators, significant gaps in measurement still exist. Development of indicators to address these gaps should be a priority. Work is also required to evaluate whether existing indicators measure what they purport to measure. [source] Performance measurement in mental health care: present situation and future possibilitiesINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2010Irma J. Baars Abstract This paper describes performance measurement and its indicators for mental health care services. Performance measurement can serve several goals such as accountability, quality improvement and performance management. For all three purposes structure, process and outcome indicators should be measured. Literature was retrieved from Medline and PsychInfo in order to see which performance indicators were used for the three purposes of performance measurement in mental health care. The indicators were classified in structure, process and outcome indicators. The results show no big differences in the indicators used among studies. Performance management is the performance measurement purpose most referred to, followed by accountability, and quality improvement. Outcome and process indicators are used most, structure indicators are in the minority. Several levels of measurement, that is national or service level, came forward in the literature review. To overcome misinterpretation of data and to be able to improve quality and manage performances, performance indicator sets should refer to structure, process and outcome. Indicators should be chosen carefully with the aim of the measurement taken into mind. Based on this review, a conceptual framework is presented to support managers in their decisions about which indictors can best be used for performance measurement. Additionally, a model that provides an understanding of the use of information gained by performance measurement is given. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] The conceptual relationship between health indicators and quality of life: results from the cross-cultural analysis of the EUROHIS field studyCLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY (AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY & PRACTICE), Issue 1 2005Silke Schmidt The aim of this study was to determine the performance of various health indicators to predict quality of life, mental health and general health from a conceptual point of view. The EUROHIS study (see Nosikov and Gudex, 2003) includes a broad range of health care and health behaviour related indicators, such as preventive care, health care utilization, use of medicine, physical health, mental health, alcohol consumption, physical activity and quality of life. Data on various health indicators and quality of life were collected from 10 countries, amounting to a sample size of 4849 (2750 females and 2099 males). An analytical approach was employed to investigate the interrelationship between indicators of each particular indicator set (such as alcohol consumption) and between conceptually different indicator sets. Regression analyses as well as structural equation modelling were employed, pooled across all countries as well as separately for different groups of countries. Findings indicate a higher extent of cross-cultural variation in health behaviour and the QOL measures than in mental health and physical health. In regression analyses, results showed strong and consistent effects of various health behaviour indicators to predict quality of life (R2 = 0.48), mental health (R2 = 0.48) or general health (R2 = 0.45). However, a differential effect of socio-demographic variables, in particular education, and health behavioural determinants was found in different groups of countries. In the structural equation modelling, good fit indices were observed for the model determining physical and mental health factors by different health behaviour factors. Findings suggest that quality of life rather mediates mental outcomes in this particular set of health indicators in a European sample than functions as an outcome variable. However, it was not possible to include sociodemographic data in the whole model but only in each of the latent factors. This finding still requires replication, both in different clinical groups and in longitudinal data.,Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Pragmatic indicators for remote Aboriginal maternal and infant health care: why it matters and where to startAUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 2010Malinda Steenkamp Abstract Objective: There are challenges in delivering maternal and infant health (MIH) care to remote Northern Territory (NT) communities. These include fragmented care with birthing in regional hospitals resulting in cultural and geographical dislocation for Aboriginal women. Many NT initiatives are aimed at improving care. Indicators for evaluating these for remote Aboriginal mothers and infants need to be clearer. We reviewed existing indicators to inform a set of pragmatic indicators for reporting improvement in remote MIH care. Methods: Scientific databases and grey literature (organisational websites and Google Scholar) were searched using the terms ,Aboriginal/maternal/infant/remote health/monitoring performance'. Key stakeholders identified omitted indicators sets. Relevant sets were reviewed and organised by indicator type, stage of patient journey, topic and theme. Results: Forty-two indicators sets were found. Seven focused on Aboriginal health, 23 on reproductive/maternal health, eight on child/infant health and four on other aspects, e.g. remote health. We identified more than 1,000 individual indicators. Of these, 656 were relevant for our purpose and were subsequently organised into 300 topics and 16 themes for antenatal, birth and postpartum, and infant care by indicator type. Conclusion: There are many measures for monitoring health care delivery to mothers and infants. Few are framed around remote MIH services, despite poorer health outcomes of remote mothers and infants and the specific challenges with providing care in this setting. Establishing relevant indicators is vital to support relevant data collection and the development of appropriate policy for remote Aboriginal maternal and infant care. [source] | ||||||||||