Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Atencion Primaria logoLink to Atencion Primaria
. 2008 Dec 10;35(3):122–128. [Article in Spanish] doi: 10.1157/13071936

Resultado de la aplicación del benchmarking en los equipos de atención primaria de Barcelona

Results Of A Benchmarking Exercise For Primary Care Teams In Barcelona, Spain

A Plaza Tesías 1,⁎, C Zara Yahni 1, A Guarga Rojas 1, J Farrés Quesada 1
PMCID: PMC7684419  PMID: 15737267

Abstract

Objective

To identify primary care teams (PCT) with the best overall performance and compare these with other PCT with benchmarking methods.

Design

Descriptive, cross-sectional study of a set of indictors for the year 2002.

Setting City of Barcelona (northeastern Spain).

Participants

Thirteen seven PCT with more than 2 years’ experience, and 771 811 inhabitants in the catchment area.

Main measures

Indicators were chosen from among those proposed by an advisory group, depending on feasibility of obtaining information. A total of 17 indicators in 4 dimensions were studied: accessibility, clinical effectiveness, case management capacity, and cost-efficiency. Each PCT was scored for each indicator based on the percentile group in the distribution of scores, and for each dimension based on the mean score for all indicators in a given dimension. Overall score for PCT performance was calculated as the weighted sum of the scores for each dimension. As descriptive variables we analyzed time operating under the revised administrative system, patient visits per population served, the population's economic capacity and age of the population.

Results

Nine PCT were identified as the benchmark group. Teams in this group had been operating under the revised administrative system for significantly longer than other PCT. In comparison to other PCT, the benchmark group obtained higher scores on all four dimensions, better results on 14 separate indicators, the same results for 1 indicator, and worse results for 2 indicators.

Conclusions

Benchmarking made it possible to identify PCT with the best performance, and to identify areas in need of improvement. This approach is a potentially useful tool for self-evaluation and for stimulating a dynamic for improvement in primary care providers.

Key words: Evaluation, Benchmarking, Results, Synthetic scoring, Indicators, Primary care

Bibliografía

  • 1.McColl A., Roderick P., Gabbay J., Smith H., Moore M. Performance indicators for primary care groups: an evidence based approach. BMJ. 1998;317:1354–1360. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7169.1354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.National Health Service Performance indicators. Department of Health.London 2003 Disponible en: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsperformanceindicators/ 2002/index.html
  • 3.Canadian Institute for Health Information Health indicator. Otawa 2003 Disponible en: http://www.cihi.ca
  • 4.Abdad P., Rouse A., Mohamemed A., Marshall T. Performance league tables: the NHS deserves better. BMJ. 2002;324:95–98. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7329.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Public Sector Benchmarking Service London 2004 Disponible en: http://www.benchmarking.gov.uk
  • 6.Marshall M.N., Shekelle P.G., Leatherman S., Brook R.H. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the Evidence. JAMA. 2000;283:1866–1874. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.14.1866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.García-Eroles L., Illa C., Arias A., Casas M. Los Top 20 2000: objetivos ventajas y limitaciones del método. Rev Calidad Asistencial. 2001;16:107–116. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Peiró S. Los mejores hospitales. Entre la necesidad de información comparativa y la confusión. Rev Calidad Asistencial. 2001;16:199–230. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.National Healht Service Performance. London 2004 Disponible en: http://www.nhs.uk/Root/Performanceratings
  • 10.Jiménez J., Cutillas S., Martín A. Evaluación de resultados en atención primaria: el proyecto MPAR-5. Aten Primaria. 2000;25:653–662. doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(00)78589-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Starfield B. New paradigms for quality in primary care. Br J General Pract. 2001;51:303–309. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Villalbí J.R., Pasarín M., Montaner I., Cabezas C., Starfield B. Evaluación de la atención primaria de salud. Aten Primaria. 2003;31:382–385. doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(03)70703-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.López-Casasnovas G. Masson; Barcelona: 2002. El interfaz público-privado en sanidad. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Plaza A., Guarga A., Farrés J., Zara C. Consenso sobre un proceso de benchmarking en la atención primaria de salud de Barcelona. Aten Primaria. 2005;35(3):130–139. doi: 10.1157/13071938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Starfield B. Masson; Barcelona: 2001. Atenció primària. Equilibri entre necessitats de salut, serveis i tecnologia. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Guarga A., Gil M., Pasarín M.I., Manzanera R., Armengol R., Sintes J. Comparación de equipos de atención primaria de Barcelona según fórmulas de gestión. Aten Primaria. 2000;26:600–606. doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(00)78731-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.National Health Service Comission for Health Improvement. Rating the NHS: NHS performance indicadors 2003/04. London 2003 Disponible en: http://www.chi.nhs.uk
  • 18.Iasit; Barcelona: 2000. Top 20 Los mejores hospitales. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hibbard J., Jewett J.J., Leignini M., Tusler M. Choosing a health plan: do large employers use the data? Health Affairs. 1997;16:172–180. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.16.6.172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vila A., Ferré X. La mortalidad evitada como producto de la atención primaria. Cuadernos de Gestión. 2001;7:131–141. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Campbell S., Cantrill J., Roberts D. Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study. BMJ. 2000;321:1–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cantrill J., Sibbad B., Buetow S. Indicators of the appropriateness of long prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdon: consensus development, face and cintent valydity, feasibility, and content validity, feasibility, and realibility. Quality Health Care. 1998;7:130–135. doi: 10.1136/qshc.7.3.130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kassirer J.P. The use and abuse of practice profiles. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:634–636. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199403033300910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Giuffrida A., Gravelle H., Roland M. Measuring quality of care with routine date: avoiding confusion between performance indicators and healht outcomes. BMJ. 1999;319:94–98. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7202.94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.McColl A.J., Roderick P., Smith H., Wilkinson E.K., Moore M., Exworthy M. Clinical gocernance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators. Quality Health Care. 2000;9:90–97. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.2.90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chassin M.R., Hannan E.L., DeBuono B.A. Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:394–398. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199602083340611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Consorci Sanitari de Barcelona Barcelona 2004 Disponible en: http://www.csbcn.org/area_prov/bench.htm
  • 28.Peiró S. El 90% dels hospitals està per sota del percentil 90. Ann Med. 2004;87:8–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lanier D., Rolant M., Burstin H., Knottnerus A. Doctor performance and public accountability. Lancet. 2003;362:1404–1408. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14638-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Atencion Primaria are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES