E.A. Tarasenko
National Research University. Higher School of Economics, Moscow

Abstract.The main purpose of public health is quality improvement of medical care. Ranking of healthcare organizations is rather effective information and marketing tool for external quality management of medical care. The author reviewed international experience in selecting quality measures of medical care to rank healthcare organizations that could be used as a methodological framework for designing rankings of healthcare organizations in Russia.

The aim of the study was to identify methodological basis of international rankings of health care facilities: major indicators and criteria for evaluating quality of medical care.

Methodology. The author analyzed methods for developing rankings of international healthcare organizations through the analysis of international scientific sources and information made public by state organizations working in the area of health management as well as through four expert interviews with experts in health management. The author attempts to structure indicators and criteria for quality evaluation of medical care based on Donabedian’s triad as well as identify definitions, content and balance between clinical and non-clinical indicators.

Results and Conclusions: In general, international ranking of healthcare organizations, developed in partnership with governmental bodies, or on the basis of statistics collected by governmental bodies, are deeply and thoroughly detailed and include over 20 quality measures (with the detailed definition of each indicator) . The subject of such ranking can be both clinical and non-clinical quality indicators of health care facilities that could be tentatively structured according to the three interrelated factors of quality of medical care according to Donabedian’s triad (structure, process and outcome), including public opinion about reputation of a health care facility.

The main recommendation for the Russian public health regarding healthcare organizations’ ranking that is based on international experience is to ensure detailed clinical statistical performance indicators of healthcare organizations according to the tree components of Bonabedian’s quality triad along with expert and patient’s appraisal of health care facility’s reputation regarding quality of medical care.

Keywords. Ranking of healthcare organizations; quality of medical care; clinical and nonclinical quality indicators; Donabedian’s triad; information and marketing tool for quality management of medical care.

References

1. Starodubov VI, Shchepin OP, Medic VA, Ulumbekova GE, Kadyrov FN, Gerasimenko NF. Public Health and Health Care. National Guide. Moscow: GEOTAR -Media , 2013. 619 p. (In Russian)
2. Siburina TA. The current technologies to provide a competitive advantage of health care facilities in the medical service market. Sotsial'nye aspekty zdorov'ya naseleniya [Online Scientific Journal]. 2010 [cited 2013 Sep 10]; 15(3). Available from: http://vestnik.mednet.ru/content/view/209/30/ (In Russian)
3. Siburina TA, Knyazev AA, Lokhtina LK, Miroshnikova YuV. The basic methodology and practice of rating assessments in health care Sotsial'nye aspekty zdorov'ya naseleniya [Online Scientific Journal]. 2012 [cited 2013 Sep 10]; 27(5). Available from: http://vestnik.mednet.ru/content/view/427/30/lang,ru/. (In Russian).
4. Starodubov VI, Galanova GI. Methodological technologies and guidelines for the management of medical care quality. Moscow: ID "Menedzher zdravookhraneniya"; 2011. 208 p. (In Russian)
5. Tel'nova ÅÀ. Quality of medical care as a basic problem of healthcare system. Vestnik Roszdravnadzora 2010; (5): 4-9. (In Russian).
6. Chavpetsov VF, Karachevtseva MA, Mikhaylov SM, Pakhomov AV, Bogushevich NM, Gurinov PV. Determination of ratings of health care facilitates and districts of St. Petersburg on the base of results of management of medical care quality. Methodological recommendation. Menedzhment kachestva v sfere zdravookhraneniya i sotsial'nogo razvitiya 2011; 10 (4): 141-148. (In Russian)
7. Chumakov AS, Shoshin AA, Magomedov AT, Kachkovskiy DV, Utkin SYu. Public opinion as a form of control over health and social efficiency of healthcare (methodological, methodical, and tactical, aspects). Sotsial'nye aspekty zdorov'ya naseleniya [Online Scientific Journal]. 2010 [cited 2013 Sep 10]; 15(3). Available from: http://vestnik.mednet.ru/content/view/221/30/lang,ru/
8. On the basis of population health protection in the Russian Federation: the Federal Law of the RF ¹323-FZ. Rossiyskaya gazeta. The federal issue; ¹5639, November 23, 2011. (In Russian).
9. Sheyman IM, Shishkin SV. Russian health care: new challenges and new target: Report of the State University –Higher School of Economics. Moscow. 2009. 65 p. (In Russian).
10. Shchepin OP, Starodubov VI, Lindenbraten AL, Galanova GI. Methodological basis and mechanism to provide medical care quality. Moscow: Meditsina; 2002. 176 p. (In Russian).
11. Yurgel' NV, Nikonov EL, Saverskiy AV. The first results of nationwide rating of maternity hospitals. Zdravookhranenie 2009; (8): 36-55. (In Russian).
12. Ashwini R. Sehgal, The Role of Reputation in U.S. News & World Report's Rankings of the Top 50 American Hospitals. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010; (8): 521-525.
13. Bacon N. Will doctor rating sites improve standards of care? Yes. BMJ 2009; 338:b1030
14. Compare Acute Care Hospitals. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 20]. Available from: http://hospitals.findthebest.com/d/t/Acute-Care-Hospital
15. Donabedian À. The Criteria and Standards of Quality. Michigan: Health Administration Press; 1982. 504 p.
16. DrFoster Hospital Guide. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 20]. Available from: http://www.drfosterhealth.co.uk/hospital-guide/
17. Greaves F., Millett C, Pape U.J. Associations between Web-Based Patient Ratings and Objective Measures of Hospital Quality. Internal Medicine 2012; 172: 435-436.
18. Hospital Compare. 2013 [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/Data/AboutData/About.aspx
19. Leapfrog Group. [Internet] 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/
20. Manian FA, Gillman M, Spitznagel A. Comparison Between Rankings of Top Hospitals by the U.S. News & World Report and the Consumer Reports Patient Ratings: Clarity or Confusion for the Empowered Consumer? Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet 2012; 16 (2): 162-169.
21. National Benchmarks Report 2013. Truven 100 Top Hospitals. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.100tophospitals.com/assets/NationalBenchmarksReportSample2013.pdf
22. NHS Choices. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx
23. Physician Hospital Outpatient Analysis. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.comparionanalytics.com/
24. Physician Quality Rating. Texas Medical Association. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.texmed.org/PhysicianRatingSchemes/
25. Physician Quality Rating Analysis. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.comparionanalytics.com/
26. Pope Devin G. Reacting to rankings: Evidence from “America’s Best Hospitals. Journal of Health Economics 2008; 28: 1154-1165.
27. Shaw Ch. The external assessment of health services. World Hospitals and Health Services 2008; 40(1): 24-27.
28. Teasley CE. Where's the Best Medicine? The Hospital Rating Game. Evaluation Review 1996; 20 (5): 568-579.
29. The Vitals.com. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.vitals.com/
30. Truven Health 100 Top Hospital. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: www.100tophospitals.com/reports
31. US News and World Report Rating. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.usnews.com/pubfiles/7-17AdultMethReport2012_Final.pdf

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Comment:
Code:*