1 / 19

Pilot implementation of standards and indicators for health promotion in hospitals

Pilot implementation of standards and indicators for health promotion in hospitals 13th International Conference on Health Promoting Hospitals 18-20 May 2005 Dublin, Ireland Oliver Gröne, Technical Officer, Hospitals Programme Country Policies, Systems and Services

kail
Download Presentation

Pilot implementation of standards and indicators for health promotion in hospitals

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pilot implementation of standards and indicators for health promotion in hospitals 13th International Conference on Health Promoting Hospitals 18-20 May 2005 Dublin, Ireland Oliver Gröne, Technical Officer, Hospitals Programme Country Policies, Systems and Services Division of Country Support WHO Regional Office for Europe

  2. Progress Working group established during the 8th International HPH Conference in Copenhagen, 2001 (Chair: Svend Jorgensen) First meeting of the “Standards” Working Group, 9th International HPH Conference in Bratislava, May 2002. Working group meetings in 11/2003, 04/2003 (finalization of standards), 10/2003 (selection of indicators). 03/2004 Finalization of self-assessment tool. 06/2004 Distribution of draft-manual. 03/2004 – 01/2005 Pilot implementation.

  3. Pilot implementation of SATMeta-Evaluation • Hospital data • Group constitution and schedules • Burden of data collection • Assessment of standards compliance • Assessment of importance and applicability of substandards and measurable elements • Assess which indicators were chosen and why • Overall experience

  4. Hospital data (1/2)

  5. Hospital data (2/2) Participating hospitals were mostly public institutions with a mixed urban/rural catchment area. More than half are general hospitals, one quarter large general, and one quarter university/specialist hospitals.

  6. Burden of data collection Quality teams met on average (median) six times to review patient records and fill in the meta-evaluation form. Time-burden: overall 40 person-hours Financial burden: average (median) 200€

  7. Assessment of compliance (1/2) 37% of standards are fully met, 34% partly met and 24% not met.

  8. Assessment of compliance (2/2) A weight is allocated for each hospital whether any of the 68 measurable elements is fully, partly or not met to construct an overall performance score.

  9. Importance and applicability of measurable elements • Assessment of measurable elements, not standards: • Comprehension • Applicability • Importance • Likert scale rating (fully agree to fully disagree). • Rating of great importance to reduce number of measurable elements and target improvements in wording.

  10. Indicators selected

  11. Overall experience

  12. The participation in the pilot-implementation of standards and indicators for health promotion in hospitals was useful! Fully agree or agree 36 (94.7%)

  13. Through the participation I have identified new potentials for quality improvement of health promotion services in hospitals! Fully agree or agree 36 (94.7%)

  14. The work related to gathering data for the self-assessment can be incorporated into organizational practice! Fully agree or agree 26 (68.4%)

  15. I recommend other hospital interested in health promotion to carry out a self-assessment using the WHO tool! Fully agree or agree 32 (84.2%)

  16. All HPHs in the network should carry out a self-assessment to see how well they are doing (without the need to make results public)! Fully agree or agree 35 (92.1%)

  17. Comments Timeframe was very tight. Tool should be easier to use (structure, hierarchy, simplification of language Develop sense of ownership for HPH initiative as reflected in action plan. SAT supports negotiation with management. Possibilities to compare and benchmark. Provide levels of certification depending on results of self-assessment.

  18. Conclusion Hospitals support the use of the tool and recommend further application in HPH network. It should be discussed whether all HPH should carry out self-assessment as part of the procedure to become HPH (without the need to disclose data). HPH projects and activities should be derived from periodic self-assessment and priorities confirmed by management. Further work to be done to better address hospital-community integration and the larger health promotion agenda.

  19. Thank you! Oliver Gröne Technical Officer, Hospital Programme WHO Regional Office for Europe Email ogr@es.euro.who.int Web www.euro.who.int/healthpromohosp

More Related