Cargando…
Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: To identify, characterize and compare existing pay-for-performance approaches and their impact on the quality of care and efficiency in ophthalmology. METHODS: A systematic evidence-based review was conducted. English, French and German written literature published between 2000 and 2015...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460462/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28583141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2333-x |
_version_ | 1783242179601235968 |
---|---|
author | Herbst, Tim Emmert, Martin |
author_facet | Herbst, Tim Emmert, Martin |
author_sort | Herbst, Tim |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To identify, characterize and compare existing pay-for-performance approaches and their impact on the quality of care and efficiency in ophthalmology. METHODS: A systematic evidence-based review was conducted. English, French and German written literature published between 2000 and 2015 were searched in the following databases: Medline (via PubMed), NCBI web site, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Econlit and the Cochrane Library. Empirical as well as descriptive articles were included. Controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled studies as well as observational studies were included as empirical articles. Systematic characterization of identified pay-for-performance approaches (P4P approaches) was conducted according to the “Model for Implementing and Monitoring Incentives for Quality” (MIMIQ). Methodological quality of empirical articles was assessed according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists. RESULTS: Overall, 13 relevant articles were included. Eleven articles were descriptive and two articles included empirical analyses. Based on these articles, four different pay-for-performance approaches implemented in the United States were identified. With regard to quality and incentive elements, systematic comparison showed numerous differences between P4P approaches. Empirical studies showed isolated cost or quality effects, while a simultaneous examination of these effects was missing. CONCLUSION: Research results show that experiences with pay-for-performance approaches in ophthalmology are limited. Identified approaches differ with regard to quality and incentive elements restricting comparability. Two empirical studies are insufficient to draw strong conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of these approaches. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2333-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5460462 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54604622017-06-07 Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review Herbst, Tim Emmert, Martin BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: To identify, characterize and compare existing pay-for-performance approaches and their impact on the quality of care and efficiency in ophthalmology. METHODS: A systematic evidence-based review was conducted. English, French and German written literature published between 2000 and 2015 were searched in the following databases: Medline (via PubMed), NCBI web site, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Econlit and the Cochrane Library. Empirical as well as descriptive articles were included. Controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled studies as well as observational studies were included as empirical articles. Systematic characterization of identified pay-for-performance approaches (P4P approaches) was conducted according to the “Model for Implementing and Monitoring Incentives for Quality” (MIMIQ). Methodological quality of empirical articles was assessed according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists. RESULTS: Overall, 13 relevant articles were included. Eleven articles were descriptive and two articles included empirical analyses. Based on these articles, four different pay-for-performance approaches implemented in the United States were identified. With regard to quality and incentive elements, systematic comparison showed numerous differences between P4P approaches. Empirical studies showed isolated cost or quality effects, while a simultaneous examination of these effects was missing. CONCLUSION: Research results show that experiences with pay-for-performance approaches in ophthalmology are limited. Identified approaches differ with regard to quality and incentive elements restricting comparability. Two empirical studies are insufficient to draw strong conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of these approaches. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2333-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5460462/ /pubmed/28583141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2333-x Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Herbst, Tim Emmert, Martin Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review |
title | Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review |
title_full | Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review |
title_short | Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review |
title_sort | characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460462/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28583141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2333-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT herbsttim characterizationandeffectivenessofpayforperformanceinophthalmologyasystematicreview AT emmertmartin characterizationandeffectivenessofpayforperformanceinophthalmologyasystematicreview |