Wp2 summary nov 2011 jan 2012
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 32

WP2 summary Nov 2011-Jan 2012 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 97 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Zawada Anna, Krzysztof Rogalski for WP2 team Hannover Plenary Assembley Feb 9 th , 2012. WP2 summary Nov 2011-Jan 2012. Agenda of the presentation. Acknowledgements to reviewers! The reviews by WP2 Report chapters – updates done, the discussion on some reviewers comments

Download Presentation

WP2 summary Nov 2011-Jan 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Wp2 summary nov 2011 jan 2012

Zawada Anna,Krzysztof Rogalskifor WP2 team

Hannover Plenary Assembley

Feb 9th, 2012

WP2 summary Nov 2011-Jan 2012


Agenda of the presentation

Agenda of the presentation

  • Acknowledgements to reviewers!

  • The reviews by WP2 Report chapters – updates done, the discussion on some reviewers comments

  • WP2 contribution to WP1 tasks

  • WP2 contribution to WP4 tasks

  • WP2 Work Plan


Quality reviewer christian kr nborg

Qualityreviewer: Christian Krönborg

Reviewers remarks

  • no recommendation on „quality of healthcare” definition

  • incoherent structure

  • some information is repeated in Quality and Outcome chapters

  • insufficient description of literature review


Quality reviewer christian kr nborg1

Qualityreviewer: Christian Krönborg

Information has been added:

  • more precise recommendations, eg. IOM„quality of healthcare” definition

  • explanation that the concept of quality in healthcare contains all areas outlined in the report (outcomes, costs, efficiency, and equity)

  • more detailed description of literature review


Quality reviewer christian kr nborg2

Qualityreviewer: Christian Krönborg

Minor changes:

  • a few subchapters have been renamed e.g. chapter 4.1.3 has been renamed to Methods of measuring quality as it contains more general approach to quality not narrowed to quality indicators

  • adherence, compliance and persistence have been assigned to Clinical Quality Assessment and process measures


Quality reviewer christian kr nborg3

Qualityreviewer: Christian Krönborg

New information has been supplemented:

  • Additional concepts of quality: technical and functional quality, service triangle

  • Sociological and psychological concepts of medical staff–patient relation


Outcomes not reviewed

Outcomesnot reviewed

  • This section has not been reviewed

  • The section has been adjusted to be logically linked to „Quality” chapter basing on comments of „Quality” reviewer

  • authors are still looking forward to the review


Risk adjustment reviewer s ren jensen

Risk adjustmentreviewer: Sören Jensen

In the response to reviewer’s remarks information has been added:

the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) definition of risk adjustment

definition of the absolute outcomes measures

explanation of the terms: unadjusted average, observed outcome, expected outcome, predicted outcome


Risk adjustment reviewer s ren jensen1

Risk adjustmentreviewer: Sören Jensen

As well as the description of three sources of variation in health outcomes:

systematic variance determined by measurable patient’s risk factors

random variance determined by unobserved idiosyncratic characteristics of a patient

valid variance atrributed to true differences in providers’ quality


Risk adjustment reviewer s ren jensen2

Risk adjustmentreviewer: Sören Jensen

Discussion added:

discussion of the consequences of omitting in the model some important risk factors

Minor changes:

the discussion of the literature selection criteria has been expanded


Costs reviewer christian kr nborg

Costsreviewer: Christian Krönborg

  • The overall aim of this chapter was to develop a common terminology and conceptual framework for costs measurement.

  • The chosen way to achieve this goal is a review of the state of the art. of calculating costs in economic evaluation.

  • The second approach – a review of guidelines for calculating costs is presented as an appendix illustrating functional character of costs calculation.


Costs reviewer christian kr nborg1

Costsreviewer: Christian Krönborg

  • Unclear presentation of literature review

  • The systematic and non-systematic review of bibliography:

  • In systematic review a too great number of articles was identified, so in addition non-systematic review was performed.

  • Articles from both groups have been used.


Costs reviewer christian kr nborg2

Costsreviewer: Christian Krönborg

  • Unclear definition & employment of indicator

  • Why we use term „indicator”

  • A Websterian definition of an indicator is „an instrument which gives you information”

  • Therefore we shall speak of a cost as an indicator of monetary value of resources expanded and it is in this sense used here.


Costs reviewer christian kr nborg3

Costsreviewer: Christian Krönborg

  • Why there are evident repetitions

  • Some terms are repeated but each time they are presented from different point of view.

  • (eg. p. 67: generalized definition;p. 75 and other: clarifying from such point of view, of which there is an examinationconducted)


Costs reviewer christian kr nborg4

Costsreviewer: Christian Krönborg

  • Why we have used (somewhat old) Canadian guidelines

  • The Canadian guidelines (published in 1996) are presented because of their completeness and uniqueness. They are worth thinking about – such guidelines have never been repeated.

  • Some older solutions are better than the newest ones


Efficiency reviewer giacomo pignataro

Efficiencyreviewer: Giacomo Pignataro

  • The aim of thischapter was to develop a common terminology and conceptual framework for efficiency measurement.

  • By assumption this chapter does NOT concentrate on the specific issues.

  • Approach takenhereis positive and embracingallanglesratherthan normative. Formulating goals and normative approach is left for health policymakers.


Efficiency

Efficiency

in DISTRIBUTION

optimal relation b/n consumption and production sides.

allocative efficiency: optimal consumption of products.

normative approach for policymakers: „What should be produced?”

‽ ex post economic evaluation

in PRODUCTION

optimal relation b/n input and output sides.

allocative efficiency: optimal employment of resources.

  • Unclear employment of efficiency concept

    The philosophy employed in our approach was as follows

    Efficiency


Efficiency reviewer giacomo pignataro1

Efficiencyreviewer: Giacomo Pignataro

  • Our approach does not allow to evaluate methods of production

  • Presented allocative efficiency (in production) allows to evaluate „How services should be produced” because it reveals the best employment of resources(to achieve efficient allocation of inputs.)

  • Problem of analysis of efficiency in distribution

  • Allocative efficiency (in distribution) allows to assess „What services should be produced”but criterion for optimization includes additional questions for policy makers(to achieve efficient allocation of products)

  • Concluding: we focus on efficiency in production.


Efficiency reviewer giacomo pignataro2

Efficiencyreviewer: Giacomo Pignataro

  • Choice between outputs and outcomes for analysis

  • We concentrate on outputs even though outcomes are even more important from analitical point of view. But problems connected with formulation of a definition and measurement do not allow to use this concept

  • In addition: The choice of outcomes is beyond the scope of this chapter


Efficiency reviewer giacomo pignataro3

Efficiencyreviewer: Giacomo Pignataro

  • The need to differentiate between deterministic and stochastic methods used in efficiency analysis

  • We describe both types of methods and stress problems existing at choosing between DEA and SFA. In addition, we concentrate on questions that should be answered before choosing production function or cost function.

  • Possibilities of employment of these two methods – deterministic and stochastic is left for the next step. There is additional question: which inputs/outputs should be chosen? – also left for the next stage of the analysis.


Equity not reviewed

Equitynot reviewed

  • The chapter on equity has not been reviewed

  • The concept of equity proposed to be discussed in detalis further


Wp2 contribution to wp1 tasks

WP2 contribution to WP1 tasks

A description of current payment methods for physicians and hospitals by reviewing European Union and OECD sources – a compendium of payment methods by Urszula Cegłowska

The objectives are:

to review single country profiles to see what payment method(s) are used and if there have been any recent changes,

to catalogue by EU country the major payment methodsused for paying physicians and hospitals - to set up a table.

Conventional methods of payment for physicans (salary, FFS, capitation, DRG-based payment, episode-based payment, informal payment and lump sum payment) and hospitals (line-item budgets, global budgets, per diem payment, FFS for patient care and DRG/per-stay payment) identified by WP1 will be considered


Wp2 contribution to wp4 tasks

WP2 contribution to WP4 tasks

  • A description of the Polish Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) – the supplement of section “Costs” by Piotr Marusza

  • Diagnosis Related Group In Poland – description of currently applied indicators of production efficiency in Polish DRG - the supplement of section “Efficiency” by Piotr Marusza


A description of the polish diagnosis related group s drg the supplement of section costs

A description of the Polish Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) – the supplement of section “Costs”

The aim of this section is to concentrate on the specific issue of Polish national DRG systems, which could help in the implementation of next stages of the project.

The objectives of this section:

a description of the pattern on which Polish DRG was developed (Polish DRG system was modeled on the British system of Healthcare Resource Groups– HRG),

a description of types of costs covered by the Polish DRG in comparison with the British HRG,

a description of the method of valuation of case-mix groups in the Polish DRG in comparison with the British HRG,

a description of the way of covering the costs of inpatient’s treatment in the Polish DRG.


A description of the polish diagnosis related group drg the supplement of section costs

A description of the Polish Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) – the supplement of section “Costs”

The scope of collaborative work on the national DRG systems. Proposed design of the questionnaire:

Is DRG-like system implemented in the country?

Describe the pattern on which the DRG in your country was developed.

Describe the types of costs which are covered by the DRG in your country.

Describe the method of case-mix groups valuation in the DRG in your country

Describe the way of covering the costs of inpatient’s treatment in the DRG in your country.


Wp2 summary nov 2011 jan 2012

Diagnosis Related Group In Poland – description of currently applied indicators of production efficiency in Polish DRG - the supplement of section “Efficiency”

The aim of this section is to concentrate on the specific issue of indicators of production efficiency applied in the national DRG systems , which could help in the implementation of next stages of the project.

The objectives of this section:

a description of indicators of production efficiency applied in the British system of Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG), on the basis of which the Polish DRG was developed.

a description of indicators of production efficiency applied in the Polish DRG.

explanation of reasons of differences between indicators of production efficiency applied in the British HRG and the ones applied in the Polish DRG.


Wp2 summary nov 2011 jan 2012

Diagnosis Related Group In Poland - description of currently applied indicators of production efficiency in Polish DRG - the supplement of section “Efficiency”

The scope of collaborative work on indicators of production efficiency applied in the national DRG systems. Proposed design of the questionnaire:

Describe the indicators of production efficiency applied in the DRG system on the basis of which the DRG in your country was developed.

Describe the indicators of production efficiency applied in the DRG in your country.

Explain any reasons of differences between indicators of production efficiency applied in the DRG system, on the basis of which was developed the DRG in your country and indicators of production efficiency applied in the DRG in your country.


Collaborative work for wp 2

Collaborative work for WP 2

Main problems:

  • Accounting data and it’s uniformity (no uniform record-keeping across i.e. hospitals)

  • Purchasing power parities (inflation- and income-adjusted PP)

  • Timeframe for uniform data patterns (i.e in Poland DRG’s are used only from 2008)

  • Identification of raw (primal) data sources for each country


The mentioned problems affects

The mentioned problems affects:

Task 2.2 and Task 2.3.

  • Cost, Outcomes & Efficiency issues (measurements) for all 4 kinds of care

    Task 2.4. & future data warehouse

  • Cross country comparative analysis (since we will get results which should be also comparable moneywise)

    Future data warehouse

  • Sources of data for analysis for all 4 areas


Therefore we will need inputs from our partners

Therefore we will need inputs from our partners:

Task 2.2 and Task 2.3.

  • Cost, Outcomes & Efficiency issues (measurements) for all 4 kinds of care

    Task 2.4.

  • Cross country comparative analysis (since we will get results which should be also comparable moneywise)

    Data Warehouse

  • Sources of data and uniform structure of input figures


Proposition for division of work

Proposition for division of work

WorkArea + Man months

Workpackage

WP3, WP4, WP5,WP6

MHH, SDU, SPH, UI, UniCT, UY

MHH, SDU, SPH, UI, UniCT, UY

10 manmonths

  • C,E,OMeasurements – each WP 1 MM

    deadline: end of March 2012

  • Macroeconomic & sectoralanalysis of analysedcountries – 0,5 MM

    deadline: end of April 2012

  • Warehouse data preparation – 0,5 MM

    deadline: end of April 2012

  • Total manmonths of collaborativework


Thank you for your attention interquality website http www interqualityproject eu

Thankyou for your attention!

InterQualitywebsite: http://www.interqualityproject.eu/


  • Login