Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 94, Issue 5, pp 391–396 | Cite as

Accountability in Public Health Units

Using a Modified Nominal Group Technique to Develop a Balanced Scorecard for Performance Measurement
  • Victoria A. Robinson
  • Duncan Hunter
  • Samuel E. D. Shortt
Article

Abstract

Background

Little attention has been paid to the need for accountability instruments applicable across all health units in the public health system. One tool, the balanced scorecard was created for industry and has been successfully adapted for use in Ontario hospitals. It consists of 4 quadrants: financial performance, outcomes, customer satisfaction and organizational development. The aim of the present study was to determine if a modified nominal group technique could be used to reach consensus among public health unit staff and public health specialists in Ontario about the components of a balanced scorecard for public health units.

Methods

A modified nominal group technique consensus method was used with the public health unit staff in 6 Eastern Ontario health units (n = 65) and public health specialists (n = 18).

Results

73.8% of the public health unit personnel from all six health units in the eastern Ontario region participated in the survey of potential indicators. A total of 74 indicators were identified in each of the 4 quadrants: program performance (n=44); financial performance (n=11); public perceptions (n=11); and organizational performance (n=8).

Interpretation

The modified nominal group technique was a successful method of incorporating the views of public health personnel and specialists in the development of a balanced scorecard for public health.

Résumé

Contexte

On s’est jusqu’ici peu préoccupé du besoin d’instruments de responsabilité convenant à tous les services de santé du réseau de santé publique. Le tableau de pointage équilibré, un instrument créé pour l’industrie, a été adapté avec succès aux hôpitaux ontariens. Il comprend quatre « quadrants »: le rendement financier, les résultats, la satisfaction des patients et le changement du système. Nous avons voulu déterminer si une technique de groupe nominal modifiée pouvait être utilisée pour que les intervenants et les spécialistes en santé publique de l’Ontario conviennent des éléments d’un tableau de pointage équilibré pour les services de santé publique.

Méthode

Nous avons appliqué au personnel de six services de santé publique de l’est de l’Ontario (n=65) et à des spécialistes en santé publique (n=18) une méthode de regroupement d’opinion faisant appel à une technique de groupe nominal modifiée.

Résultats

Le taux de participation des employés des six services de santé publique de l’est de l’Ontario à l’enquête sur les indicateurs possibles a été de 73,8 %. En tout, 74 indicateurs ont été définis pour chaque quadrant: le rendement des programmes (n=44); le rendement financier (n=11); la perception du public (n=11); et le rendement organisationnel (n=8).

Interprétation

La technique de groupe nominal modifiée est une bonne façon d’intégrer les points de vue des intervenants et des spécialistes en santé publique dans l’élaboration d’un tableau de pointage équilibré pour la santé publique.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Shortt SED, Macdonald, JK. Towards an accountability framework for Canadian healthcare. Healthcare Management Forum 2002;15(4):24–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaplan RS, Norton, DP. The Balanced Scorecard — Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 1992; Jan-Feb:71–79.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaplan RS, Norton, DP. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review 1996;Jan-Feb:75–85.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaplan RS, Norton, DP. Translating Strategy into Action — The Balanced Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rucci AJ, Kirn SP, Quinn, RT. The Employee- Customer-Profit Chain at Sears. Harvard Business Review 1998;Jan-Feb:82–97.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huckestein D, Duboff R. Hilton Hotels: A Comprehensive Approach to Delivering Value for All Stakeholders. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 1999;40(4):28–38.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goel V, Robinson V. Balanced Scorecards for Public Health. Health Care Data: Research, Planning and Decision-making (ICES/HIU Conference). Toronto, ON, January 17–18, 2001. (presentation)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment 1998;2(3):1–98.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones J, Hunter D. Using the Delphi and nominal group technique in health services research. In: Pope C, Mays N (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Health Care, 2nd, ed. London: BMJ, 2000;40–45.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahn DA, Docherty JP, Carpenter D, Frances A. Consensus methods in practice guideline development: A review and description of a new method. Psychopharmacology 1997;33(4):631–39.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. Br Med J 1995;311(7001):376–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ontario Hospital Association and The University of Toronto. The Hospital Report 1998: A System-wide Review of Ontario’s Hospitals. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ontario Hospital Association and The University of Toronto. Hospital Report 1999: A Balanced Scorecard for Ontario Acute Care Hospitals. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ontario Hospital Association and The University of Toronto. Hospital Report 2001: Acute Care. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grbich C. Qualitative Research in Health — An Introduction. London: Sage Publications, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ontario Council on Community Health Accreditation (OCCHA). Accreditation Documents. Burlington: The Ontario Council on Community Health Accreditation, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information and Statistics Canada. Health Indicators 2000. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Public Health Research Education and Development (PHRED) Program. A Blueprint for Public Health Practice: A Benchmarking Toolkit. London: Middlesex-London Health Unit, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Public health on the ropes [editorial]. CMAJ 2002;166(10):1245.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victoria A. Robinson
    • 1
  • Duncan Hunter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Samuel E. D. Shortt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Community Health and EpidemiologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Health Services and Policy ResearchQueen’s UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations