1 / 33

Benchmarking and quality improvement in Emergency Departments in Belgium.

Benchmarking and quality improvement in Emergency Departments in Belgium. On behalf of the Belgian Board for Quality Improvement, J.B. Gillet. Eusem, Portoroz 2002. Federal Ministry of Public Health, Ministerial Decree , june10, 1999 Buylaert Walter, Colson Paul,

abia
Download Presentation

Benchmarking and quality improvement in Emergency Departments in Belgium.

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. Benchmarking and quality improvement in Emergency Departments in Belgium. On behalf of the Belgian Board for Quality Improvement, J.B. Gillet. Eusem, Portoroz 2002.

  2. Federal Ministry of Public Health, Ministerial Decree , june10, 1999 Buylaert Walter, Colson Paul, De Soir Ria (vice-présidente), D'Orio Vincent (exp.), Gillet Jean Bernard (Président), Hachimi Idrissi Said, Lheureux Philippe (secrétaire), Marion Eric (exp.), Meulemans Agnes (exp.), Stroobants Jan (exp.), Vergnion Michel, Vroonen Marie Christine (secrétaire-adjointe).

  3. Belgian College of Emergency Physician (BeCEP) Belgian Society for Emergency and Disaster Medicine (BeSEDiM) Federal Ministry of Public Health Partners in Belgium Belgian Board of Emergency Physicians for Quality Improvement

  4. Mission statement • To define indicators of quality • To propose a national registry on specific topics selected by the peers. • To promote continuous quality improvement by continuous feed back • To edit a yearly national report

  5. Quality of care ?Potential components of quality. • Accessibility • Appropriateness • Continuity • Effectiveness • Efficacy • Efficiency • Patient perception issues • Safety of the care environment • Timeliness of care By the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, 1990.

  6. Quality Assurance vs Quality Improvement Quality assurancefocus Quality improvement : shift curve to the right. Good outcome Bad outcome Okay outcome

  7. Continuous Quality Improvement • Error free can not be guaranteed, but quality of care can always be improved • CQI focuses on system first and individuals second. • CQI requires leadership commitment and performance measurement. • CQI is organised around patient care DS & MR O ’Leary, Emerg Med Clinics of North America, 1992.

  8. Benchmarking « The continuous process of measuring products, services, and practices against the compagny’s toughest competitors or those companies renowned as industry leaders. » Camp RC : Milwaukee, Wis, 1989, American Society for Quality Control, Quality Press.

  9. Benchmarking model • Phase 1 : Planning • Phase 2 : Analysis • Phase 3 : Integration • Phase 4 : Action

  10. Aim of the study : • Evaluate • activity, • architecture, • organization • finances • Benchmarking

  11. Indirect indicators of quality ? • Do you have regular staff meetings ? • Do you have access « round the clock » to the medical records of the patients ? • Is the chief of the ED an emergency physician ? • Do you use guideliness ? • Do you have a annual disaster plan review, and exercice ?

  12. Benchmarking ? • A written rapport of the survey (1997) • An oral presentation to the general assembly of the BeCEP • Publication in the medical and non medical press (1998)

  13. Aim of the study : • Evaluate • activity, • architecture, • organization • Compare with 1996 • Benchmarking

  14. Number of participating ED : 52/143 Average size of participating hospitals : 416 beds Average passages / ED : 19.000 Number of participating ED : 89/143 Average size of participating hospitals : 252 beds Average passages / ED : 19.808 Comparison 1996-2000

  15. BeCEP 96 vs College 2000 : Hospital size of the participating ED. 1996 2000

  16. In 1996 : No : 12/52 (23%) Yes, monthly : 21/52 (40%) In 2000 : No : 21/89 (23 %) Yes, monthly: 78/89 (87 %) Do you organize regular ED staff meetings ?

  17. ED staff meetings ? Analysis restricted to the participants at both studies 1996 :87% vs 2000 : 83%, Binomial, NS.

  18. In 1996 : No : 39/52 (75%) Yes: 13/52 ( 25%) In 2000 : No : 64/89 (72%) Yes: 25/89 ( 28%) Do you have an ED committee with reprentative of other services of the hospital ?

  19. ED committee : Analysis restricted to the participants at both studies Mac Neuman, p=0.035

  20. In 1996 : Yes : 36 ( 69% ) No : 16 ( 31%) In 2000 : Yes: 64/89 (72%) No : 25/89 (28%) Are medical records available « round the clock »?

  21. Medical record available ? Analysis restricted to the participants at both studies 1996 :74% vs 2000 : 82%, Binomial, NS.

  22. In 1996 : No : 16/52 (31%) Yes : 36/52 (69%) Medical : 31/52 Ethical : 18/52 In 2000 : No : 19/89 (23 %) Yes, : 70/89 (87 %) Medical : 70/89 Ethical : 39/89 Do you use guidelines ?

  23. Guidelines ? Analysis restricted to the participants at both studies 1996 :71% vs 2000 : 84%, Binomial, NS.

  24. In 1996 : No : 11/52 (21%) Yes : 41/52 (78%) Yes, typed : 8/41 (19%) In 2000 : No : 20/89 (22 %) Yes: 69/89 (78 %) yes, typed : 28/69 (40%) Do you send systematicaly a medical letter to the GP ?

  25. Letter to the GP ? Analysis restricted to the participants at both studies Binomial, NS.

  26. Letter typed to the GP ? Analysis restricted to the participants at both studies Binomial, p = 0.016.

  27. In 1996 : EP involvement in disaster planning : Yes : 42/52 (80%) Annual exercice : Yes : 22/52 (42%) Annual review : Yes : 31/52 (60%) In 2000 : EP involvement in disaster planning : Yes : 69/89 (77%) Annual exercice : Yes : 36/89 (40%) Annual review : Yes : 60/89 (67%) Disaster prepardness ?

  28. Disaster planning review ? Analysis restricted to the participants at both studies 1996 :69% vs 2000 : 91%, Binomial p=0.0039

  29. In 1996 : No : /52 (31%) Yes : /52 (69%) In 2000 : No : 20/89 (22 %) Yes, : 69/89 (78 %) Is the ED under the responsability of an EP ?

  30. Is the ED under the responsability of an EP? Analysis restricted to the participants at both studies 1996 :83% vs 2000 : 100%, Binomial p=0.0031

  31. Conclusions (1) • We observed that the participation at such surveys is increasing with smaller hospitals participating • Between 1996 and 2000, some improvements in quality indicators are observed.

  32. Conclusions (2) • Benchmarking is one of the possible explanation. • Other factors of influence are non excluded : • Federal decree with dedicated regulation on EM in 1998 • inclusion bias due to participation on voluntary base.

  33. Conclusions (3) • Since our results discloses that some ED do not satisfy to the legal requirements, we conclude that the answers given by the participating ED are very honest and reflects the reality of the emergency medicine in Belgium. • This seems to be due to the strict independence and the guaranty of anonymity given by the Belgian Board.

More Related