The QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe) study aims to evaluate the performance of primary care systems in Europe in terms of quality, equity and costs. The study will provide an answer to the question what strong primary care systems entail and which effects primary care systems have on the performance of health care systems. QUALICOPC is funded by the European Commission under the "Seventh Framework Programme". In this article the background and design of the QUALICOPC study is described.

Background: Benchmarking has been recognised as a valuable method to help identify strengths and weaknesses at all levels of the healthcare system. Despite a growing interest in the practice and study of benchmarking, its contribution to quality of care have not been well elucidated. As such, we conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of synthesizing the evidence regarding the relationship between benchmarking and quality improvement. We also sought to provide evidence on the associated strategies that can be used to further stimulate quality improvement. Methods: We searched three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) for articles studying the impact of benchmarking on quality of care (processes and outcomes). Following assessment of the articles for inclusion, we conducted data analysis, quality assessment and critical synthesis according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic literature review. Results: A total of 17 articles were identified. All studies reported a positive association between the use of benchmarking and quality improvement in terms of processes (N = 10), outcomes (N = 13) or both (N = 7). In the majority of studies (N = 12), at least one intervention, complementary to benchmarking, was undertaken to stimulate quality improvement. The interventions ranged from meetings between participants to quality improvement plans and financial incentives. A combination of multiple interventions was present in over half of the studies (N = 10). Conclusions: The results generated from this review suggest that the practice of benchmarking in healthcare is a growing field, and more research is needed to better understand its effects on quality improvement. Furthermore, our findings indicate that benchmarking may stimulate quality improvement, and that interventions, complementary to benchmarking, seem to reinforce this improvement. Although this study points towards the benefit of combining performance measurement with interventions in terms of quality, future research should further analyse the impact of these interventions individually.

The Italian Health care System provides universal coverage for comprehensive health services and is mainly financed through general taxation. Since the early 1990s, a strong decentralization policy has been adopted in Italy and the state has gradually ceded its jurisdiction to regional governments, of which there are twenty. These regions now have political, administrative, fiscal and organizational responsibility for the provision of health care. This paper examines the different governance models that the regions have adopted and investigates the performance evaluation systems (PESs) associated with them, focusing on the experience of a network of ten regional governments that share the same PES. The article draws on the wide range of governance models and PESs in order to design a natural experiment. Through an analysis of 14 indicators measured in 2007 and in 2012 for all the regions, the study examines how different performance evaluation models are associated with different health care performances and whether the network-shared PES has made any difference to the results achieved by the regions involved. The initial results support the idea that systematic benchmarking and public disclosure of data are powerful tools to guarantee the balanced and sustained improvement of the health care systems, but only if they are integrated with the regional governance mechanisms.

Background: One of the most distinctive management competencies is related to the ability to structure the strategic vision, develop long-term plans, and communicate them efficiently to the employees in order to empower them to enact. These managerial competencies in complex organizations are strongly related to the capacity to engage professionals as a predictor of high-performing organizations. Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between top management competencies, information sharing, and organizational performance in public health care system and to look at the management role in assuring information sharing on organizational strategies to achieve professionals’ engagement. Methodology/Approach: This relationship is empirically tested using the longitudinal data of public health care organizations from the Tuscany Region (Italy). The top management competencies and information sharing are evaluated by the heads of the departments. While information sharing refers to the organizational level (e.g., to convey the objectives), managerial competencies refer to the individual level (e.g., to manage conflict). A random effect regression model is estimated using average responses by the health organization. Data come from the multidimensional performance evaluation system (2008 to 2014 years). Results: Findings show that managerial competencies are positively associated to organizational performance. Moreover, managerial competencies are strongly linked to the information sharing process developed into the organizations. In particular, managerial competencies play a significant role on whole performance, and results are mediated by the use of mature information sharing instruments such as benchmarking of performance results. Conclusion: Systematic information sharing process regarding performance results, goals, and organizational structure provided by top management seems an effective strategy to engage professionals. Control variables suggest that top management tenure and turnover do not have an effect, whereas bigger health care organizations seem to negatively influence this relation. Practice Implications: Information sharing is the basis for clinicians’ engagement and adds value to organizational performance.

Since 80’s the introduction of New Public Management principles has promoted the use of performance measurement to drive a more efficient, effective and accountable public sector. The adoption of a sophisticated and comprehensive multidimensional performance measurement system, which looks beyond traditional financial measures, based on organization strategies, such as the balanced scorecard, has thus been suggested. This revolution in the public management came together with the devolution processes that involved most European public health systems. Set within this context, in the last decade, each of the twenty Italian regions developed its own management tools. Among others, the Tuscan performance evaluation system (PES) has been valued as a particularly innovative and comprehensive system. This paper reports the novel experience of the Tuscan PES; in particular, it measures PES effectiveness and discusses the critical factors that could have led to the PES success. Five are the critical success factors identified by researchers: the visual reporting system, the linkage between PES and CEO’s reward system, the public disclosure of data, the high level of employees and managers involvement into the entire process and the strong political commitment. All those factors run together to achieve better results; however, the process of development of the system plays a pivotal role. Scholars suggest the use of a constructive approach in order to gain effective changes in human organization. According to this stream of literature, this paper contributes by the novel experience of the Tuscan PES in addressing as a further fruitful application of the constructivist approach in healthcare.

Health systems face challenges which are inherent to care demand and supply evolution (i.e., demographic change, new technologies) or are the results of unexpected occurrence originating outside the health system, such as economic shocks or epidemic outbreaks. Both challenges often require a paradigm shift in governance and organization, financing and resource allocation, accountability frameworks, as well as public health system responses. Based on key reviews and seminal papers of performance management, public health, sustainability and resilience, the article presents three emerging challenges for performance management systems in healthcare: i) the inclusion of the population approach; ii) the measurement and consideration of the multi-facets concepts of value; iii) the importance of resilience and sustainability. Performance management systems need to evolve to cope with this changing scenario. The article sheds light on uncovered areas by performance management, and it proposes a research agenda for scholars of both performance management and health service research.