Abstract
Background
Little attention has been paid to the need for accountability instruments applicable across all health units in the public health system. One tool, the balanced scorecard was created for industry and has been successfully adapted for use in Ontario hospitals. It consists of 4 quadrants: financial performance, outcomes, customer satisfaction and organizational development. The aim of the present study was to determine if a modified nominal group technique could be used to reach consensus among public health unit staff and public health specialists in Ontario about the components of a balanced scorecard for public health units.
Methods
A modified nominal group technique consensus method was used with the public health unit staff in 6 Eastern Ontario health units (n = 65) and public health specialists (n = 18).
Results
73.8% of the public health unit personnel from all six health units in the eastern Ontario region participated in the survey of potential indicators. A total of 74 indicators were identified in each of the 4 quadrants: program performance (n=44); financial performance (n=11); public perceptions (n=11); and organizational performance (n=8).
Interpretation
The modified nominal group technique was a successful method of incorporating the views of public health personnel and specialists in the development of a balanced scorecard for public health.
Résumé
Contexte
On s’est jusqu’ici peu préoccupé du besoin d’instruments de responsabilité convenant à tous les services de santé du réseau de santé publique. Le tableau de pointage équilibré, un instrument créé pour l’industrie, a été adapté avec succès aux hôpitaux ontariens. Il comprend quatre « quadrants »: le rendement financier, les résultats, la satisfaction des patients et le changement du système. Nous avons voulu déterminer si une technique de groupe nominal modifiée pouvait être utilisée pour que les intervenants et les spécialistes en santé publique de l’Ontario conviennent des éléments d’un tableau de pointage équilibré pour les services de santé publique.
Méthode
Nous avons appliqué au personnel de six services de santé publique de l’est de l’Ontario (n=65) et à des spécialistes en santé publique (n=18) une méthode de regroupement d’opinion faisant appel à une technique de groupe nominal modifiée.
Résultats
Le taux de participation des employés des six services de santé publique de l’est de l’Ontario à l’enquête sur les indicateurs possibles a été de 73,8 %. En tout, 74 indicateurs ont été définis pour chaque quadrant: le rendement des programmes (n=44); le rendement financier (n=11); la perception du public (n=11); et le rendement organisationnel (n=8).
Interprétation
La technique de groupe nominal modifiée est une bonne façon d’intégrer les points de vue des intervenants et des spécialistes en santé publique dans l’élaboration d’un tableau de pointage équilibré pour la santé publique.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: Ms. Robinson was supported in this research by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship. We gratefully thank the staff of the public health units in Eastern Ontario for their participation. The authors would also like to acknowledge the important contribution made by Dr. Vivek Goel in identifying the potential for applying the balanced scorecard model to public health.
References
- 1.Shortt SED, Macdonald JK. Towards an accountability framework for Canadian healthcare. Healthcare Management Forum. 2002;15(4):24–32. doi: 10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60577-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Harvard Business Review. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard — Measures that drive performance; pp. 71–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Harvard Business Review. 1996. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System; pp. 75–85. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Translating Strategy into Action — The Balanced Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rucci AJ, Kirn SP, Quinn RT. Harvard Business Review. 1998. The Employee- Customer-Profit Chain at Sears; pp. 82–97. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Huckestein D, Duboff R. Hilton Hotels: A Comprehensive Approach to Delivering Value for All Stakeholders. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 1999;40(4):28–38. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Goel V, Robinson V. Balanced Scorecards for Public Health; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment. 1998;2(3):1–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Jones J, Hunter D. Using the Delphi and nominal group technique in health services research. In: Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative Research in Health Care. 2nd. London: BMJ; 2000. pp. 40–45. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kahn DA, Docherty JP, Carpenter D, Frances A. Consensus methods in practice guideline development: A review and description of a new method. Psychopharmacology. 1997;33(4):631–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. Br Med J. 1995;311(7001):376–80. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ontario Hospital AssociationThe University of Toronto. The Hospital Report 1998: A System-wide Review of Ontario’s Hospitals. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ontario Hospital AssociationThe University of Toronto. Hospital Report 1999: A Balanced Scorecard for Ontario Acute Care Hospitals. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ontario Hospital AssociationThe University of Toronto. Hospital Report 2001: Acute Care. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Grbich C. Qualitative Research in Health — An Introduction. London: Sage Publications; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ontario Council on Community Health Accreditation OCCHA. Accreditation Documents. Burlington: The Ontario Council on Community Health Accreditation; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Canadian Institute for Health InformationStatistics Canada. Health Indicators 2000. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Public Health Research EducationDevelopment PHRED Program. A Blueprint for Public Health Practice: A Benchmarking Toolkit. London: Middlesex-London Health Unit; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Public health on the ropes [editorial]. CMAJ. 2002;16610:1245. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]