Biblioteca (Relatórios)
Health at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2023
AUTOR(ES): OECD/The World Bank
ANO:
RESUMO: This second edition of Health at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean, prepared jointly by OECD and the World Bank, presents a set of key indicators of health status, determinants of health, healthcare resources and utilisation, healthcare expenditure and financing, quality of care, health workforce, and ageing across 33 Latin America and the Caribbean countries. Each of the indicators is presented in a user-friendly format, consisting of charts illustrating variations across countries, and over time, brief descriptive analyses highlighting the major findings conveyed by the data, and a methodological box on the definition of the indicators and any limitations in data comparability. This edition of Health at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean also provides thematic analyses on two key topics for building more resilient health in the LAC region: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LAC healthcare systems, and climate change and health.
FONTE: OECD/The World Bank
REFERENCIA: OECD/The World Bank (2023), Health at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/532b0e2d-en.
A performance measurement framework for the Canadian health system
AUTOR(ES): Canadian Institute for Health Information
ANO:
RESUMO:
FONTE: Canadian Institute for Health Information
REFERENCIA: Canadian Institute for Health Information. A performance measurement framework for the Canadian health system. Ottawa: CIHI, 2013.
Performance Measurement and Performance Management in OECD Health Systems
AUTOR(ES): Jeremy Hurst and Melissa Jee-Hughes
ANO: 2001
RESUMO: Health systems in OECD countries are under pressure to improve their performance. Against that background, this paper has three main aims: To compare concepts of the ‘performance’ of health care systems developed by the WHO and by the OECD, with ‘performance frameworks’ adopted in selected OECD countries. To compare the key indicators of performance derived from these proposed performance concepts. A secondary objective, here, is to try to identify new performance variables that might eventually be included in OECD Health Data. To compare and contrast the different performance management arrangements in the selected OECD countries, and to evaluate the extent to which there is evidence that new indicators and new institutions have been brought together successfully to improve performance itself.
FONTE: OECD
REFERENCIA: Hurst, J. and M. Jee-Hughes (2001), "Performance Measurement and Performance Management in OECD Health Systems", OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, No. 47, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/788224073713.
Health at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2020
AUTOR(ES): OECD/The World Bank
ANO: 2020
RESUMO: Health at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2020 presents key indicators on health and health systems in 33 Latin America and the Caribbean countries. This first Health at a Glance publication to cover the Latin America and the Caribbean region was prepared jointly by OECD and the World Bank. Analysis is based on the latest comparable data across almost 100 indicators including equity, health status, determinants of health, health care resources and utilisation, health expenditure and financing, and quality of care. The editorial discusses the main challenges for the region brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as managing the outbreak as well as mobilising adequate resources and using them efficiently to ensure an effective response to the epidemic. An initial chapter summarises the comparative performance of countries before the crisis, followed by a special chapter about addressing wasteful health spending that is either ineffective or does not lead to improvement in health outcomes so that to direct saved resources where they are urgently needed.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: OECD/The World Bank (2020), Health at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6089164f-en.
Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care
AUTOR(ES): Eric C. Schneider, M.D., Dana O. Sarnak, David Squires, Arnav Shah, and Michelle M. Doty
ANO: 2017
RESUMO: Issue: The United States health care system spends far more than other high-income countries, yet has previously documented gaps in the quality of care. Goal: This report compares health care system performance in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Methods: Seventy-two indicators were selected in five domains: Care Process, Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes. Data sources included Commonwealth Fund international surveys of patients and physicians and selected measures from OECD, WHO, and the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. We calculated performance scores for each domain, as well as an overall score for each country. Key findings: The U.S. ranked last on performance overall, and ranked last or near last on the Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes domains. The top-ranked countries overall were the U.K., Australia, and the Netherlands. Based on a broad range of indicators, the U.S. health system is an outlier, spending far more but falling short of the performance achieved by other high-income countries. The results suggest the U.S. health care system should look at other countries’ approaches if it wants to achieve an affordable high-performing health care system that serves all Americans.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA:
Indicators of quality of care in general practices in England
AUTOR(ES): Jennifer Dixon, Emma Spencelayh, Anna Howells, Abraham Mandel, Felix Gille
ANO: 2015
RESUMO: In the summer of 2015 the Health Foundation was asked by the Secretary of State for Health to review indicators of the quality of care provided by general practices in England. We looked at how indicators could be developed to generate meaningful information that supports improvements to care and helps the public choose which practice might best meet their needs. Within the short timeframe available for the review (June to September 2015), the Foundation consulted with a wide range of organisations and individuals with an interest in how information about general practice care quality is collated and published. We assessed the literature, analysed indicators currently used as well as the websites on which they are published, and worked with insight agency BritainThinks to understand the public’s views. Our review focused on publication of indicators for the purposes of supporting local improvement of care, patient choice and voice, and the accountability and performance management of general practices. The review also strongly advises against making a composite score out of selected indicators to indicate the quality of care overall in general practice, or for particular population groups.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: The Health Foundation, an independent health care charity, was asked by the Secretary of State for Health to review indicators of the quality of general practice in England. We looked at how they could be made better to support improvements to care, including how they are selected and presented. Within the short timeframe available for the review (June to September 2015), the Foundation consulted with a wide range of organisations and individuals with an interest in general practice and information. We assessed the available literature and analysed current indicators as well as the websites on which they are published. Our review focused on publication of indicators for the purposes of supporting local improvement of care, patient choice and voice, and the accountability and performance management of general practices. While our review was commissioned by the Department of Health, the Health Foundation did not receive any funding for completing the work. The Health Foundation retained full editorial control of the report’s content.
Do all paths lead to Rome? Comparative analysis in the institutionalization of the evaluation
AUTOR(ES): Aquilino, N., Ballescá , M., Potenza, F., Rubio, J.
ANO: 2017
RESUMO: In recent years, evaluation has gained importance within public administrations of different countries. Even still, in many cases, it is implemented in a fragmented manner, in response to specific and isolated requests. On the other hand, to speak of a “system” with regards to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) implies that the practice derives from stable institutional arrangements that distribute the functions between those involved in the process, as well as other definitions with an orientation towards quality assessment information in a regular and sustained manner. This document analyzes different institutional arrangements of a set of countries with federal governments with respect to M&E. Those analyzed include Canada, Spain, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. The case studies of the following sub-national governments are included as well: Catalonia, Jalisco, Pernambuco and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. Said studies demonstrate that if a single pattern of institutionalization of M&E functions does not exist, it is important to consider transversal aspects that affect its development. The formation of a system does not end with the creation of an agency or body responsible for M&E. For this organism to have the necessary capacities to carry out its functions, it requires an institutional insertion that guarantees a certain degree of political independence, while also enabling it to promote evaluations as a management tool. Likewise, it is necessary to establish rules defining responsibilities, rules that establish the obligation to evaluate and define quality standards in addition to defining a financing mechanism that guarantees the autonomy, perdurability of the system, and the commitments of evaluated programs or organisms. With respect to the evaluative practice, it is important to consider, not only the definition of an evaluative plan, but also quality control of information produced, and the promotion of evaluation, the use of which improves accountability, transparency of government actions, and decision making. This last facet requires the instauration of mechanisms promoting the use of information in management but also the generation of M&E information that could easily translate into decisions, improving programs and policies. The analyzed case studies demonstrate that M&E systems have started to expand to a level of sub-national states. These governments should act as an active partner in the design and implementation of the national M&E systems and promoters of their own systems. Because of this, the development of capacities and the institutionalization of areas in the government with these specific attributions from said matters are key.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: Aquilino, N., Ballescá, M., Potenza, F., Rubio, J. (June de 2017). Do all paths lead to Rome? Comparative analysis in the institutionalization of the evaluation. Working Paper No. 159 Buenos Aires: CIPPEC.
Health at a Glance 2019
AUTOR(ES): OECD
ANO: 2019
RESUMO: Health at a Glance compares key indicators for population health and health system performance across OECD members, candidate and partner countries. It highlights how countries differ in terms of the health status and health-seeking behaviour of their citizens; access to and quality of health care; and the resources available for health. Analysis is based on the latest comparable data across 80 indicators, with data coming from official national statistics, unless otherwise stated. Alongside indicator-by-indicator analysis, an overview chapter summarises the comparative performance of countries and major trends, including how much health spending is associated with staffing, access, quality and health outcomes. This edition also includes a special focus on patient-reported outcomes and experiences, with a thematic chapter on measuring what matters for people-centred health systems.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: OECD (2019), Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4dd50c09-en.
Health at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators
AUTOR(ES): OECD
ANO: 2017
RESUMO: This new edition of Health at a Glance presents the most recent comparable data on the health status of populations and health system performance in OECD countries. Where possible, it also reports data for partner countries (Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Lithuania, Russian Federation and South Africa). The data presented in this publication come from official national statistics, unless otherwise stated. This edition contains a range of new indicators, particularly on risk factors for health. It also places greater emphasis on time trend analysis. Alongside indicator-by-indicator analysis, this edition offers snapshots and dashboard indicators that summarise the comparative performance of countries, and a special chapter on the main factors driving life expectancy gains.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: OECD (2017), Health at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2017-en.
Where are the patients in decision-making about their own care?
AUTOR(ES): Coulter, Angela; Parsons, Suzanne; Askham, Janet.
ANO: 2008
RESUMO: Patients can play a distinct role in protecting their health, choosing appropriate treatments for episodes of ill health and managing chronic disease. Considerable evidence suggests that patient engagement can improve their experience and satisfaction and also can be effective clinically and economically. This policy brief outlines what the research evidence tells us about the effects of engaging patients in their clinical care, and it reviews policy interventions that have been (or could be) implemented in different health care systems across Europe. In particular, it focuses on strategies to improve: health literacy; treatment decision-making; self-management of chronic conditions.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: Parsons, S., Coulter, A., & Askham, J. (2008). Where are the patients in decision making about their own care? Geneva: World Health Organisation.
The Good Indicators Guide: understanding how to use and choose indicators
AUTOR(ES): Pencheon, David.
ANO: 2008
RESUMO: This short guide focuses on the key principles behind developing, understanding and using indicators. It is designed to be an essential and readable guide to those in senior positions who may not always feel entirely comfortable with this important areaThis guide is intended to be a short, practical resource for anyone in any health system who is responsible for using indicators to monitor and improve performance, systems or outcomes.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: PENCHEON, David. The Good Indicators Guide: Understanding how to use and choose indicators. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, 2008.
State of the USA Health Indicators: Letter Report
AUTOR(ES): Institute of Medicine
ANO: 2009
RESUMO: Researchers, policymakers, sociologists and doctors have long asked how to best measure the health of a nation, yet the challenge persists. The nonprofit State of the USA, Inc. (SUSA) is taking on this challenge, demonstrating how to measure the health of the United States. The organization is developing a new website intended to provide reliable and objective facts about the U.S. in a number of key areas, including health, and to provide an interactive tool with which individuals can track the progress made in each of these areas. In 2008, SUSA asked the Institute of Medicine's Committee on the State of the USA Health Indicators to provide guidance on 20 key indicators to be used on the organization's website that would be valuable in assessing health. Each indicator was required to demonstrate: a clear importance to health or health care, the availability of reliable, high quality data to measure change in the indicators over time, the potential to be measured with federally collected data, and the capability to be broken down by geography, populations subgroups including race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Taken together, the selected indicators reflect the overall health of the nation and the efficiency and efficacy of U.S. health systems. The complete list of 20 can be found in the report brief and book.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: Institute of Medicine. 2009. State of the USA Health Indicators: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/12534.
State Health Policies Aimed at Promoting Excellent Systems: a Report on States' Roles in Health Systems Performance
AUTOR(ES): Hess, Catherine; Schwartz, Sonya; Rosenthal, Jill; Snyder, Andrew; Weil, Alan.
ANO: 2008
RESUMO: This report builds upon the work of the Commonwealth Fund's Commission on a High Performance Health System. The report organizes the attributes of high performance defined by the Commission into groupings relevant to state health policy and practice.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: HESS et al. State Health Policies Aimed at Promoting Excellent Systems: A Report on States' Roles in Health Systems Performance. National Academy for State Health Policy, 2008.
Society at a Glance: 2016
AUTOR(ES): OECD
ANO: 2016
RESUMO: This is the eighth edition of Society at a Glance, the biennial OECD overview of social indicators. This report addresses the growing demand for quantitative evidence on social well-being and its trends. It updates some indicators included in the previous editions published since 2001 and introduces several new ones, with 25 indicators in total. It includes data for the 35 OECD member countries and where available data for key partners (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa); other G20 countries (Argentina and Saudi Arabia) are also included. The report features a special chapter on the NEET challenge and what can be done for jobless and disengaged youth. It also provides a guide to help readers in understanding the structure of OECD social indicators. All indicators are available as a web book and an e-book on OECD iLibrary.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: OECD. Society at a Glance 2016: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264261488-en
Slovenia: Health System Review
AUTOR(ES): Albreht T, Pribakovi? Brinovec R, Jo?ar D, Poldrugovac M, Kostnapfel T, Zaletel M, Panteli D, Maresso A.
ANO: 2016
RESUMO: This analysis of the Slovene health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. The health of the population has improved over the last few decades. While life expectancy for both men and women is similar to EU averages, morbidity and mortality data show persistent disparities between regions, and mortality from external causes is particularly high. Satisfaction with health care delivery is high, but recently waiting times for some outpatient specialist services have increased. Greater focus on preventive measures is also needed as well as better care coordination, particularly for those with chronic conditions. Despite having relatively high levels of co-payments for many services covered by the universal compulsory health insurance system, these expenses are counterbalanced by voluntary health insurance, which covers 95% of the population liable for co-payments. However, Slovenia is somewhat unique among social health insurance countries in that it relies almost exclusively on payroll contributions to fund its compulsory health insurance system. This makes health sector revenues very susceptible to economic and labour market fluctuations. A future challenge will be to diversify the resource base for health system funding and thus bolster sustainability in the longer term, while preserving service delivery and quality of care. Given changing demographics and morbidity patterns, further challenges include restructuring the funding and provision of long-term care and enhancing health system efficiency through reform of purchasing and provider-payment systems.
FONTE:
REFERENCIA: Albreht T, Pribakovi? Brinovec R, Jo?ar D, Poldrugovac M, Kostnapfel T, Zaletel M, Panteli D, Maresso A. Slovenia: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 2016; 18(3):1-207.
1 2 3 4