Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 1998 Jun;7(2):90–97. doi: 10.1136/qshc.7.2.90

What do health authorities think of population based health outcome indicators?

A McColl, P Roderick, J Gabbay, G Ferris
PMCID: PMC2483594  PMID: 10180796

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the role of population based indicators of health outcome in local health outcome assessments; the constraints of using such indicators; how they could be made more useful; and whether health authorities had developed their own indicators of health outcome. DESIGN: A structured telephone interview with representatives of 91 of the 100 English health authorities. RESULTS: Interviewees, asked to give details on two clinical areas in which population health outcome assessments had been of most value, nominated 147 examples in over 30 clinical areas. They chose 50 (34%) of the examples because of an outlying national indicator, and 20 (14%) because of local variations in a national indicator. The main perceived constraints in the use of population based indicators of health outcome were: data validity and timeliness; the attributability of these health outcomes to the quality of health care; the difficulties of changing clinical behavior; and organisational change within health authorities. To make these indicators more useful interviewees wanted an increased use of process indicators as proxies for health outcome, indicator trend data, and indicator comparisons of districts with similar population structures. Some recent publications have started to consider some of these issues. 27 (30%) health authorities had developed their own indicators, mostly provider based process indicators. 10 of these used their own indicators to manage the performance of local provider units. CONCLUSIONS: Population based indicators of health outcome had an important role in prompting districts to undertake population health outcome assessments. Health authorities also used these indicators to examine local variations in health outcome. They helped to highlight areas for further investigation, initiated data validation, and enabled the monitoring of changes to services. Comparative population based indicators of health outcome may have an increasing part to play in assessing the performance of health authorities.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (117.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Blumenthal D. Part 1: Quality of care--what is it? N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 19;335(12):891–894. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609193351213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bull A. R., Hatton P., Bensley D. C., Bull S. J., Fryers P. T. Standardized mortality from cervical cancer: a measure of performance? J Public Health Med. 1994 Mar;16(1):16–22. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Charlton J. R., Hartley R. M., Silver R., Holland W. W. Geographical variation in mortality from conditions amenable to medical intervention in England and Wales. Lancet. 1983 Mar 26;1(8326 Pt 1):691–696. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(83)91981-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Davies H. T., Crombie I. K. Assessing the quality of care. BMJ. 1995 Sep 23;311(7008):766–766. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7008.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mant J., Hicks N. Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1995 Sep 23;311(7008):793–796. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7008.793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. McKee M., Hunter D. Mortality league tables: do they inform or mislead? Qual Health Care. 1995 Mar;4(1):5–12. doi: 10.1136/qshc.4.1.5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Payne J. N., Milner P. C., Saul C., Bowns I. R., Hannay D. R., Ramsay L. E. Local confidential inquiry into avoidable factors in deaths from stroke and hypertensive disease. BMJ. 1993 Oct 23;307(6911):1027–1030. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6911.1027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Payne N., Saul C. Variations in use of cardiology services in a health authority: comparison of coronary artery revascularisation rates with prevalence of angina and coronary mortality. BMJ. 1997 Jan 25;314(7076):257–261. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7076.257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rockall T. A., Logan R. F., Devlin H. B., Northfield T. C. Variation in outcome after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. The National Audit of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage. Lancet. 1995 Aug 5;346(8971):346–350. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92227-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rutstein D. D., Berenberg W., Chalmers T. C., Child C. G., 3rd, Fishman A. P., Perrin E. B. Measuring the quality of medical care. A clinical method. N Engl J Med. 1976 Mar 11;294(11):582–588. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197603112941104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Todd C. J., Freeman C. J., Camilleri-Ferrante C., Palmer C. R., Hyder A., Laxton C. E., Parker M. J., Payne B. V., Rushton N. Differences in mortality after fracture of hip: the east Anglian audit. BMJ. 1995 Apr 8;310(6984):904–908. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6984.904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Walshe K., Ham C. Evidence-based care. Who's acting on the evidence? Health Serv J. 1997 Apr 3;107(5547):22–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wolfe C. D., Taub N. A., Woodrow J., Richardson E., Warburton F. G., Burney P. G. Does the incidence, severity, or case fatality of stroke vary in southern England? J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Apr;47(2):139–143. doi: 10.1136/jech.47.2.139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES