Data quality in European primary care research databases. Report of a workshop held in London September 2013

Primary care research databases provide a significant resource for health services and epidemiological research. However since data are recorded primarily for clinical care their suitability for research may vary widely according to the research application or recording practices of individual general practitioners. A methodological approach for characterising data quality is required. We describe a one-day workshop entitled “Towards a common protocol for measuring and monitoring data quality in European primary care research databases”. Researchers, database experts and clinicians were invited to give their perspectives on data quality and to exchange ideas on what data quality metrics should be made available to researchers. We report the main outcomes of this workshop, including a summary of the presentations and discussions and suggested way forward

Medicaid and CHIP Strategies for Improving Child Health

Explains state programs' need for child health measures that focus on outcomes; are standardized across programs, agencies, and states; and reward performance through provider reimbursement. Points out opportunities for foundation and government support

The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. The review was chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, supported by an independent and multidisciplinary group of experts in scientometrics, research funding, research policy, publishing, university management and administration. This review has gone beyond earlier studies to take a deeper look at potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators. It has explored the use of metrics across different disciplines, and assessed their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact. It has analysed their role in processes of research assessment, including the next cycle of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It has considered the changing ways in which universities are using quantitative indicators in their management systems, and the growing power of league tables and rankings. And it has considered the negative or unintended effects of metrics on various aspects of research culture. The report starts by tracing the history of metrics in research management and assessment, in the UK and internationally. It looks at the applicability of metrics within different research cultures, compares the peer review system with metric-based alternatives, and considers what balance might be struck between the two. It charts the development of research management systems within institutions, and examines the effects of the growing use of quantitative indicators on different aspects of research culture, including performance management, equality, diversity, interdisciplinarity, and the ‘gaming’ of assessment systems. The review looks at how different funders are using quantitative indicators, and considers their potential role in research and innovation policy. Finally, it examines the role that metrics played in REF2014, and outlines scenarios for their contribution to future exercises

Counting Is Not Enough: Investing in Qualitative Case Reviews for Practice Improvement in Child Welfare

Outlines the value of quality case service reviews in child welfare systems, requirements for building and sustaining a robust process and adapting it under limited state budgets, and recommendations for jurisdictions, initiators, and national leadership

No equity, no triple aim: strategic proposals to advance health equity in a volatile policy environment

Health professionals, including social workers, community health workers, public health workers, and licensed health care providers, share common interests and responsibilities in promoting health equity and improving social determinants of health—the conditions in which we live, work, play, and learn. This article summarizes underlying causes of health inequity and comparatively poor health outcomes in the U.S. It describes barriers to realizing the hope embedded in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that moving away from fee-for-service payments will naturally drive care upstream as providers respond to greater financial risk for the health of their patients by undertaking greater prevention efforts. The article asserts that health equity should serve as the guiding framework for achieving the Triple Aim of health care reform. It outlines practical opportunities for improving care and for promoting stronger efforts to address social determinants of health. These proposals include developing a dashboard of measures to assist providers committed to health equity and community-based prevention and to promote institutional accountability for addressing socio-economic factors that influence health