Building capacity and identifying appropriate support: how can the EU contribute to securing resources for health systems?

European health systems face increasing challenges and demands, while striving to provide high-quality care. The European Union (‎EU)‎ offers support to complement national efforts, but accessing and utilising it can be challenging for Member States. Austria, Belgium, and Slovenia are collaborating on a multi-country project supported by the EU’s Technical Support Instrument, to create an EU Health Resources Hub. This advisory service aims to help Member States access EU funding instruments for their health needs. This article discusses the project’s goals and early learnings, offering insights that could inform future health funding opportunities and policies in Europe

The experiences of 33 national COVID-19 dashboard teams during the first year of the pandemic in the World Health Organization European Region: A qualitative study

Background: Governments across the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region have prioritised dashboards for reporting COVID-19 data. The ubiquitous use of dashboards for public reporting is a novel phenomenon. Objective: This study explores the development of COVID-19 dashboards during the first year of the pandemic and identifies common barriers, enablers and lessons from the experiences of teams responsible for their development. Methods: We applied multiple methods to identify and recruit COVID-19 dashboard teams, using a purposive, quota sampling approach. Semi-structured group interviews were conducted from April to June 2021. Using elaborative coding and thematic analysis, we derived descriptive and explanatory themes from the interview data. A validation workshop was held with study participants in June 2021. Results: Eighty informants participated, representing 33 national COVID-19 dashboard teams across the WHO European Region. Most dashboards were launched swiftly during the first months of the pandemic, February to May 2020. The urgency, intense workload, limited human resources, data and privacy constraints and public scrutiny were common challenges in the initial development stage. Themes related to barriers or enablers were identified, pertaining to the pre-pandemic context, pandemic itself, people and processes and software, data and users. Lessons emerged around the themes of simplicity, trust, partnership, software and data and change. Conclusions: COVID-19 dashboards were developed in a learning-by-doing approach. The experiences of teams reveal that initial underpreparedness was offset by high-level political endorsement, the professionalism of teams, accelerated data improvements and immediate support with commercial software solutions. To leverage the full potential of dashboards for health data reporting, investments are needed at the team, national and pan-European levels

Features Constituting Actionable COVID-19 Dashboards:Descriptive Assessment and Expert Appraisal of 158 Public Web-Based COVID-19 Dashboards

Background: Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the development of dashboards as dynamic, visual tools for communicating COVID-19 data has surged worldwide. Dashboards can inform decision-making and support behavior change. To do so, they must be actionable. The features that constitute an actionable dashboard in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been rigorously assessed. Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the characteristics of public web-based COVID-19 dashboards by assessing their purpose and users (“why”), content and data (“what”), and analyses and displays (“how” they communicate COVID-19 data), and ultimately to appraise the common features of highly actionable dashboards. Methods: We conducted a descriptive assessment and scoring using nominal group technique with an international panel of experts (n=17) on a global sample of COVID-19 dashboards in July 2020. The sequence of steps included multimethod sampling of dashboards; development and piloting of an assessment tool; data extraction and an initial round of actionability scoring; a workshop based on a preliminary analysis of the results; and reconsideration of actionability scores followed by joint determination of common features of highly actionable dashboards. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to explore the findings by research question. Results: A total of 158 dashboards from 53 countries were assessed. Dashboards were predominately developed by government authorities (100/158, 63.0%) and were national (93/158, 58.9%) in scope. We found that only 20 of the 158 dashboards (12.7%) stated both their primary purpose and intended audience. Nearly all dashboards reported epidemiological indicators (155/158, 98.1%), followed by health system management indicators (85/158, 53.8%), whereas indicators on social and economic impact and behavioral insights were the least reported (7/158, 4.4% and 2/158, 1.3%, respectively). Approximately a quarter of the dashboards (39/158, 24.7%) did not report their data sources. The dashboards predominately reported time trends and disaggregated data by two geographic levels and by age and sex. The dashboards used an average of 2.2 types of displays (SD 0.86); these were mostly graphs and maps, followed by tables. To support data interpretation, color-coding was common (93/158, 89.4%), although only one-fifth of the dashboards (31/158, 19.6%) included text explaining the quality and meaning of the data. In total, 20/158 dashboards (12.7%) were appraised as highly actionable, and seven common features were identified between them. Actionable COVID-19 dashboards (1) know their audience and information needs; (2) manage the type, volume, and flow of displayed information; (3) report data sources and methods clearly; (4) link time trends to policy decisions; (5) provide data that are “close to home”; (6) break down the population into relevant subgroups; and (7) use storytelling and visual cues. Conclusions: COVID-19 dashboards are diverse in the why, what, and how by which they communicate insights on the pandemic and support data-driven decision-making. To leverage their full potential, dashboard developers should consider adopting the seven actionability features identified

Monitoring of quality in health care using indicators

A number of stakeholders identified the need to revise the national set of quality indicators. The objectives of monitoring quality indicators that were determined in 2010 for the most part were not accomplished. Key reasons include: insufficient communication between stakeholders after the indicator set was introduced, insufficient definition of human and financial resources necessary for indicators\u27 monitoring, lack of a thorough ICT structure that could support indicators\u27 monitoring and weak leadership for these activities. A new performance indicators\u27 set requires a clear identification of the objectives to be pursued and consequently of the theoretical framework for the indicators. Mostly it is necessary in addition to the identification of the challenges so far, to also recognize what are the possibilities to strengthen this area in the future

How are regulatory oversight organisations using long-term care performance indicators: a qualitative descriptive study in 10 high-income countries

OBJECTIVES: Regulatory oversight organisations play an important role in quality stewardship in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Performance indicators are a key tool for any quality-related work. Our aim was to better understand how and what performance indicators are used by regulatory oversight organisations for long-term care facilities oversight and which features are affecting their fitness for use. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We explored the use of LTC facility performance indicators by 10 regulatory oversight organisations from England, Ireland, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden and the Netherlands. We collected information by means of a questionnaire, 13 follow-up interviews with 20 experts from these organisations and document review. RESULTS: Performance indicators are used by participating oversight organisations to choose priority topics for audits, prioritise facilities to be audited and to identify areas within an audited facility, that require more attention. The indicators of most interest to oversight organisations are related to the dimensions of care articulated in the preset requirements on which audits are based. When the purpose of using indicators is to design a risk assessment model, the fitness for use of indicators ultimately depends on their ability to predict non-compliances on subsequent audits. When indicators are used directly by auditors, the ease of access, clear guidance to evaluate the data and the provision of contextual information are used by oversight organisations to increase fitness for use. CONCLUSIONS: Oversight organisations do not use LTC facility performance indicators to assess quality, but rather to assess the risk of lower quality or of non-compliance with requirements. This risk-related purpose has to be considered when the indicators used in oversight are chosen and when other aspects of fitness for use, such as data analysis and displaying findings, are developed

Why, what and how do European healthcare managers use performance data? Results of a survey and workshop among members of the European Hospital and Healthcare Federation.

Objective of this study was to better understand the use of performance data for evidence-based decision-making by managers in hospitals and other healthcare organisations in Europe in 2019. In order to explore why, what and how performance data is collected, reported and used, we conducted a cross-sectional study based on a self-reported online questionnaire and a follow-up interactive workshop. Our study population were participants of a pan-European professional Exchange Programme and their hosts (n = 125), mostly mid-level hospital managers. We found that a substantial amount of performance data is collected and reported, but could be utilised better for decision-making purposes. Motivation to collect and report performance data is equally internal and external, for improvement as well as for accountability purposes. Benchmarking between organisations is recognised as being important but is still underused. A plethora of different data sources are used, but more should be done on conceptualising, collecting, reporting and using patient-reported data. Managers working for privately owned organisations reported greater use of performance data than those working for public ones. Strategic levels of management use performance data more for justifying their decisions, while managers on operational and clinical levels use it more for day-to-day decision-making. Our study showed that, despite the substantial and increasing use of performance data for evidence-based management, there is room and need to further explore and expand its role in strategic decision-making and supporting a shift in healthcare from organisational accountability towards the model of learning organisations

Why, what and how do European healthcare managers use performance data? Results of a survey and workshop among members of the European Hospital and Healthcare Federation

Objective of this study was to better understand the use of performance data for evidencebased decision-making by managers in hospitals and other healthcare organisations in Europe in 2019. In order to explore why, what and how performance data is collected, reported and used, we conducted a cross-sectional study based on a self-reported online questionnaire and a follow-up interactive workshop. Our study population were participants of a pan-European professional Exchange Programme and their hosts (n = 125), mostly mid-level hospital managers. We found that a substantial amount of performance data is collected and reported, but could be utilised better for decision-making purposes. Motivation to collect and report performance data is equally internal and external, for improvement as well as for accountability purposes. Benchmarking between organisations is recognised as being important but is still underused. A plethora of different data sources are used, but more should be done on conceptualising, collecting, reporting and using patient-reported data. Managers working for privately owned organisations reported greater use of performance data than those working for public ones. Strategic levels of management use performance data more for justifying their decisions, while managers on operational and clinical levels use it more for day-to-day decision-making. Our study showed that, despite the substantial and increasing use of performance data for evidence-based management, there is room and need to further explore and expand its role in strategic decision-making and supporting a shift in healthcare from organisational accountability towards the model of learning organisations