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.

More and more countries have been implementing chronic care programs, such as the Chronic Care Model (CCM) to manage non-acute conditions of diseases in a more effective and less expensive way. Often, these programs aim to provide care for single conditions instead of the sum of diseases. This paper analyzes the satisfaction and better management of single and multiple chronic patients with the core elements of chronic care programs in Siena, Italy. In addition, the paper also considers whether the CCM introduced in Siena has any influence on satisfaction and better self-management. Survey data from patients with single chronic (N = 500) and multiple chronic diseases (N = 454), assisted by the Local Health Authority in Siena (Tuscany, Italy), were considered for the analysis. Variables on education, monitoring system, proactivity, relational continuity, model of care (CCM versus no CCM) and patient demographics were used to detect which strategies are associated with a higher patient-reported ability to better self-manage the disease and overall patient satisfaction. Logistic and ordinary logistic models were executed on data related to patients with both single and multiple chronic diseases. The results showed that monitoring was the sole strategy associated with overall satisfaction and better self-management for both single and multiple chronic patients. Relational continuity also showed a significant positive association with better self-management perception for both patient groups, but had a positive association with patient satisfaction only for single chronic patients. Enrolment in the CCM was not associated with both overall satisfaction and better management for the two patient groups. Strategies that are significantly associated with satisfaction and perception of better disease self-management were the same for both single and multiple chronic patients. The delivery of care based on the Siena CCM does not seem to make a difference in the perception of better self-management and overall satisfaction for all the patients. Other concurrent strategies implemented by the regional government in Tuscany on primary care monitoring and health promotion could partially explain why CCM does not have a significant influence.

Heart failure impacts patients’ quality of life and life expectancy and significantly affects the daily behaviours and feelings of family caregivers. At the end-of-life, the burden for family caregivers depends on their emotional and sentimental involvement, as well as social costs. Objectives: The aim of this work is to determine whether and how family caregivers’ experiences and expectations vary in relation to the places of care and teams involved in heart failure management. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted, by screening manuscripts dealing with the experience of Family Care Givers’ (FCGs) of patients with Advanced Heart failure. Methods and results were reported following the PRISMA rules. Papers were searched through three databases (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science). Seven topics were used to synthetize results by reporting qualitative information and quantitative evidence about the experience of FCGs in places of care and with care teams. Results: Thirty-one papers, dealing with the experience of 814 FCGs, were selected for this systematic review. Most manuscripts came from the USA (N = 14) and European countries (N = 13) and were based on qualitative methods. The most common care setting and provider profile combination at the end of life was home care (N = 22) and multiprofessional teams (N = 27). Family caregivers experienced “psychological issues” (48.4%), impact of patients’ condition on their life (38,7%) and “worries for the future” (22.6%). Usually, when family caregivers were unprepared for the future, the care setting was the home, and there was a lack of palliative physicians on the team. Discussion: At the end-of-life, the major needs of chronic patients and their relatives are not health related. And, as we observed, non-health needs can be satisfied by improving some key components of the care management process that could be related to care team and setting of care. Our findings can support the design of new policies and strategies.