Thesis

46 Chapter 3 ‘waiting times’ and the domain ‘services’ in a score for ‘patient orientation’. The scores for ‘medical care’ and ‘patient orientation’ determine together the ‘total score’. The score of a hospital is expressed in one to four balls (Table 2). Table 2 Cross table of Elsevier scores and some underlying indicator sets Elsevier score overall medical care patient orientation effective treatment frequency percent frequency percent frequency percent frequent percent 4 12 17.91 11 16.42 9 13.43 11 16.42 3 34 50.75 23 34.33 35 52.24 22 32.84 2 13 19.40 22 32.84 16 23.88 24 35.82 1 8 11.94 11 16.42 7 10.45 10 14.93 total hospitals 67 100.0 67 100.0 67 100.0 67 100 The balls do not contain any value judgment of Elsevier but indicate how the hospital scores on the selected indicators compared with the average in the Netherlands. The participating hospitals do not qualify as “bad” or “good’ in an absolute sense. The ‘effective treatment’ indicator (red box in Fig. 1) is part of the Elsevier effectiveness domain (Fig. 1) and is based upon 62 (only ZiZo) so called ‘structure’ indicators 18 per hospital. Elsevier and SiRM have made available the scores and all underlying data for the purpose of this study. One of the senior researchers of SiRM is co-author of this paper. Per hospital the 106 underlying EMRAM eHealth indicators and the 26 Elsevier indicators per hospital were included in a SPSS database. In a later stage also the mentioned 542 underlying basic indicators of the 26 Elsevier indicators were included to test the hypothesis of this paper. RESULTS No significant correlation is found between the EMRAM scores and the Elsevier performance indicators (Tables 3 and 4).

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw