Skip to main content
. 2019 Feb 16;28(8):635–644. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008354

Table 2.

Characteristics of hospitals in each quadrant

Quadrant 1
P+/E+*
N=7
Quadrant 2
P+/E-
N=2
Quadrant 3
P/E+
N=3
Quadrant 4
P/E§
N=2
Level of care—n (%)¶
 Low-risk 2 (29) 2 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 High-risk 5 (71) 0 (0) 3 (100) 2 (100)
Birth volume/year—n (%)
<500 2 (29) 2 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 501–2499 3 (43) 0 (0) 1 (33) 1 (50)
>2500 2 (29) 0 (0) 2 (67) 1 (50)
Method of data entry into provincial registry—n (%)
 Manual 5 (71) 1 (50) 2 (67) 1 (50)
 Upload from EHR 2 (29) 1 (50) 1 (33) 1 (50)
Of the KPIs that were red/yellow in April 2013, percent that changed to green by March 2016—mean (SD)
(range)
72 (36.7)
­
(0–100)**
63 (4.7)
­
(60–67)
26 (6.6)
­
(20–33)
0 (0)
­
(0)
Number of KPIs green in March 2016 (out of 6)—mean (SD)
(range)
5 (0.8)
(4–6)
4.5 (0.7)
(4–5)
2.3 (0.6)
(2–3)
2 (1.4)
(1–3)

*Quadrant 1: High performance, high engagement.

†Quadrant 2: High performance, low engagement.

‡Quadrant 3: Low performance, high engagement.

§Quadrant 4: Low performance, low engagement.

¶Low-risk includes level I hospitals; high-risk includes level II and III hospitals; level of care defined as per the Provincial Council for Maternal and Child Health.37

**Including one site who was green on all six KPIs at baseline.

E, engagement with Dashboard; EHR, electronic health record; KPI, key performance indicator; P, performance on KPIs.