Making Quality Transparent: How Quantification is Implicated in Changing Norms for Governing Healthcare



In recent years, the notion of transparency has gained increased importance as a way to govern the performance of public organizations. In order to achieve transparency in the healthcare sector, quantified descriptions of quality have become embedded in processes of evaluation and audit which are intended to make hospitals and other healthcare organizations knowable to a wider public. This chapter uses a case study of German hospitals to explore the origins of quantification practices which have enacted doctrines of transparency in the field of healthcare. More specifically, it focuses the role of “routine data” in making the quality of care transparent. It shows how routine data becomes a taken for granted way of accounting for quality, and in the process, how specific notions of medical care that were once rather opaque and unclear to outsiders have been made into objects of management and intervention. The paper contributes to a broader field of transparency research by asking how practices of quantification and the norms of transparency become aligned with one another to form a legitimate form of healthcare governance. In analyzing the ambiguous relationship between co-evolving practices and norms, and the drivers behind their development, insights could be drawn which help us understand how seemingly indispensable principles of good governance and good organization are realized with unintended consequences.


Quantification Transparency Hospitals Quality Governance 


  1. Abernethy, M. A., Chua, W. F., Grafton, J., & Mahama, H. (2007). Accounting and control in health care. Behavioural, organisational, sociological and critical perspectives. In C. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbooks of management accounting research (pp. 805–829). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2016). Organizational transparency. Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business and Society. Scholar
  3. August, V. (2018). Theorie und Praxis der Transparenz: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Berliner Blätter, 21(76), 129–156.Google Scholar
  4. Beaussier, A.-L., Demeritt, D., Griffiths, A., & Rothstein, H. (2016). Accounting for failure. Risk-based regulation and the problems of ensuring healthcare quality in the NHS. Health, Risk & Society, 18(3–4), 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, A. (2014). Grenzen der Objektivität—Qualität von Qualitätsvergleichen. Das Krankenhaus, 106(10), 924–933.Google Scholar
  6. Beer, D. (2016). Metric power. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bevan, G. (2008). Changing paradigms of governance and regulation of quality of healthcare in england. Health, Risk & Society, 10(1), 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2004). Targets, inspections, and transparency. British Medical Journal, 328(13), 598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters. Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blomgren, M. (2007). The drive for transparency. Organizational field transformations in swedish healthcare. Public Administration, 85(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blomgren, M., & Sahlin, K. (2007). Quest for transparency. Signs of a new institutional era in the health care field. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Transcending new public management. The transformation of public sector reform (pp. 155–177). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Bowerman, M., Raby, H., & Humphrey, C. (2000). In search of the audit society. Some evidence from health care, police and schools. International Journal of Auditing, 4(1), 71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Briers, M., & Chua, W. F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change. A field study of an implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(3), 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2012). The dynamics of standardization. Three perspectives on standards in organization studies. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 613–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bühler, M., & Heintz, B. (2017). Seen but not noticed. The role of comparisons in economic sociology. Economic Sociology: The European Electronic Newsletter, 18(3), 9–18.Google Scholar
  17. Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A. G., & Hughes, J. (1980). The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Busse, R., Nimptsch, U., & Mansky, T. (2009). Measuring, monitoring, and managing quality in Germany’s hospitals. Value in Health Care, 28(2), 294–304.Google Scholar
  19. Chapman, C. S., Cooper, D. J., & Miller, P. B. (Eds.). (2009). Accounting, organizations, and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). Garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dent, M. (2003). Remodelling hospitals and health professions in Europe. Medicine, nursing and the state. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dent, M., Howorth, C., Mueller, F., & Preuschoft, C. (2004). Architype transition in the german health service. The attempted modernization of hospitals in a North German state. Public Administration, 82(3), 727–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Donabedian, A. (1980). Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring (vol. 1). Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar
  24. Donabedian, A. (1992). Quality assurance in healthcare. Consumers’ role. Quality in Health Care, 1(4), 247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Espeland, W. N., & Lom, S. E. (2015). Noticing numbers. How quantification changes what we see and what we don’t. In M. Kornberger, L. Justesen, A. K. Madsen, & J. Mouritsen (Eds.), Making things valuable (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2016). Engines of anxiety. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology, 49(3), 401–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fligstein, N. (1998). The politics of quantification. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 663–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gerlinger, T. (2009). Der Wandel der Interessenvermittlung in der Gesundheitspolitik. In U. Willems, T. Winter, & B. Rehder (Eds.), Interessensvermittlung in Politikfeldern. Vergleichende Befunde Der Verbände- und Policyforschung (pp. 33–51). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Glouberman, S., & Mintzberg, H. (2001). Managing the care of health and the cure of disease. Part I: Differentiation. Health Care Management Review, 26(1), 56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Griffiths, A., Beaussier, A.-L., Demeritt, D., & Rothstein, H. (2017). Intelligent monitoring. Assessing the ability of the care quality commission’s statistical surveillance tool to predict quality and prioritise NHS Hospital inspections. The BMJ, 26(2), 120–130.Google Scholar
  34. Grobe, T. G., Nimptsch, U., & Friedrich, J. (2014). Krankenhausbehandlung. In E. Swart, P. Ihle, H. Gothe, & D. Matusiewicz (Eds.), Routinedaten im Gesundheitswesen. Handbuch Sekundärdatenanalyse. Grundlagen, Methoden und Perspektiven (pp. 121–145). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  35. Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Han, B.-C. (2012). Transparenzgesellschaft. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.Google Scholar
  37. Hansen, H. K. (2015). Numerical operations, transparency illusions and the datafication of governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heald, D. (2006). Transparency as an instrumental value. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency. The key to better governance (pp. 59–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Heintz, B. (2010). Numerische Differenz. Überlegungen zu einer Soziologie des (quantitativen) Vergleichs. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 39(3), 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heller, G., & Günster, C. (2008). Mit Routinedaten Qualität in der Medizin sichern. Aktuelle Entwicklungen und weitere Perspektiven. Gesellschaft und Gesundheit Wissenschaft, 8(1), 26–34.Google Scholar
  41. Heller, G., Swart, E., & Manksy, T. (2004). Qualitätsanalysen mit Routinedaten. Ansatz und erste Analysen aus dem Gemeinschaftsprojekt ‚Qualitätssicherung mit Routinedaten‘ (QSR). In J. Klauber, B. P. Robra, & H. Schnellschmidt (Eds.), Krankenhausreport 2003 (pp. 271–288). Stuttgart: Schattauer.Google Scholar
  42. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hood, C. (1995). The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s. Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in targetworld. The targets approach to managing british public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hood, C. (2007). Public service management by numbers. Why does it vary. Where has it come from. What are the gaps and the puzzles. Public Money and Management, 27(2), 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hood, C. (2012). Public management by numbers as a performance-enhancing drug. Two hypotheses. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hood, C., & Heald, D. (Eds.). (2006). Transparency. The key to better governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hopwood, A. G. (1990). Accouting and organisation change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 3(1), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jeschke, E., Heyde, K., & Günster, C. (2013). Der Zusammenhang von Komplikationen im Krankenhaus und im Follow-up und Implikationen für die Qualitätsmessung bei Hüftgelenksendoprothesen. Eine Analyse von AOK-Routinedaten. Gesundheitswesen, 75(5), 288–295.Google Scholar
  50. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  51. Kopp, I. B. (2011). Von Leitlinien zur Qualitättssicherung. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, 54(2), 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kornberger, M., & Carter, C. (2010). Manufacturing competition. How accounting practices shape strategy making in cities. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(3), 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kurunmäki, L. (1999). Professional vs. financial capital in the field of health care. Struggles for the redistribution of power and control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(2), 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kurunmäki, L., & Miller, P. (2008). Counting the costs. The risks of regulating and accounting for health care provision. Health, Risk & Society, 10(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kurunmäki, L., & Miller, P. (2013). Calculating failure. The making of a calculative infrastructure for forgiving and forecasting failure. Business History, 55(7), 1100–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kurunmäki, L., Mennicken, A., & Miller, P. (2016). Quantifying, economising, and marketising. Democratising the social sphere. Sociologie Du Travail, 58(4), 390–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lapsley, I. (1996a). Health care reforms. Solutions or problems. Financial Accountability & Management, 12(2), 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lapsley, I. (1996b). Reflections on performance measurement in the public sector. In I. Lapsley & F. Mitchell (Eds.), Accounting and performance measurement. Issues in the private and public sectors (pp. 109–128). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  59. Lapsley, I. (1999). Accounting and the new public management Instruments of substantive efficiency or a rationalising modernity. Financial Accountability and Management, 15(3–4), 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lapsley, I. (2016). New public management. The story continues. Financial Accountability & Management, 32(4), 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Levay, C., & Waks, C. (2009). Professions and the pursuit of transparency in healthcare. Two cases of soft autonomy. Organization Studies, 30(2), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Llewellyn, S. (2001). Two-way windows. Clinicians as medical managers. Organization Studies, 22(4), 593–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Llewellyn, S., & Northcott, D. (2005). The average hospital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(4), 555–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mau, S. (2017). Das metrische Wir. Über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  65. Merry, S. E. (2016). The seductions of quantification. Measuring human rights, gender violence, and sex trafficking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Merry, S. E., & Coutin, S. B. (2014). Technologies of truth in the anthropology of conflict. American Ethnologist, 41(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Messer, M., & Reilley, J. T. (2015). Qualitätsberichte als Vermittlungsinstanz im Wettbewerb zwischen Krankenhäusern. Patienten als rationale Akteure. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 25(1–2), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Miller, P. (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice. An introduction. In A. G. Hopwood & P. Miller (Eds.), Accounting as social and institutional practice (pp. 1–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Miller, P. (2001). Governing by numbers. Why calculative practices matter. Social Research, 68(2), 379–396.Google Scholar
  70. Miller, P., & Power, M. (2013). Accounting, organizing, and economizing. Connecting accounting research and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 557–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present Administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  73. Modell, S. (2004). Performance measurement myths in the public sector. A research note. Financial Accountability & Management, 20(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Neyland, D., & Coopmans, C. (2014). Visual accountability. Sociological Review, 62(4), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Olsen, J. P. (2013). The institutional basis of democratic accountability. West European Politics, 36(3), 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Palermo, T., Power, M., & Ashby, S. (2017). Navigating institutional complexity. The production of risk culture in the financial sector. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 154–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pflueger, D. (2015). Accounting for quality. On the relationship between accounting and quality improvement in healthcare. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pflueger, D. (2016). Knowing patients. The customer survey and the changing margins of accounting in healthcare. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 53(17), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services. The anglo-american experience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  80. Pollitt, C. (1996). Business approaches to quality improvement. Why they are hard for the NHS to swallow. Quality in Health Care, 5(2), 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pollitt, C. (2005). Performance management in practice. A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pollitt, C. (2007). Hospital performance indicators. How and why neighbours facing similar problems go different ways. Building explanations of hospital performance indicator systems in England and the Netherlands. In C. Pollitt, S. van Thiel, & V. Homburg (Eds.), New public management in Europe. Adaptation and alternatives (pp. 149–164). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  83. Pollitt, C. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19(4), 346–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pollitt, C. (2016). Managerialism redux. Financial Accountability & Management, 32(4), 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Porter, T. M. (2015). The flight of the indicator. In R. Rottenburg, S. E. Merry, S.-J. Park, & J. Muggler (Eds.), The world of indicators. The making of governmental knowledge through quantification (pp. 34–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Porter, M. E., & Guth, C. (2012). Redefining german health care. Moving to a value-based system. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Power, M. (2004). Counting, control and calculation. Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Power, M. (2007). Organized uncertainty. Designing a world of risk management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Power, M. (2015). How accounting begins. Object formation and the creation of infrastructure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Reilley, J. T., & Scheytt, T. (2017). Governing through quantification. Developing a calculative infrastructure for controlling quality in german hospitals. Risk & Regulation, 33, 18–21.Google Scholar
  93. Revellino, S., & Mouritsen, J. (2015). Accounting as an engine. The performativity of calculative practices and the dynamics of innovation. Management Accounting Research, 28, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Robson, K. (1992). Accounting numbers as ‘inscription’. Action at a distance and the development of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(7), 685–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state. Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings. Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schimank, U. (2005). ‘New public management’ and the academic profession. Reflections on the German situation. Minerva, 43(4), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Strathern, M. (2000). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Journal, 26(3), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Timmermans, S. (2008). Professionals and their work. Do market shelters protect professional interests. Work and Occupations, 35(2), 164–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vogd, W., Feißt, M., Molzberger, K., Ostermann, A., & Slotta, J. (2018). Entscheidungsfindung im Krankenhausmanagement. Zwischen gesellschaftlichem Anspruch, ökonomischen Kalkülen und professionellen Rationalitäten. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  102. Vollmer, H. (2007). How to do more with numbers. Elementary stakes, framing, keying, and the three-dimensional character of numerical signs. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(6), 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Werron, T. (2014). On public forms of competition. Cultural Studies—Critical Methodologies, 14(1), 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wieczorek, C. C., Marent, B., Osrecki, F., Dorner, T. E., & Dür, W. (2015). Hospitals as professional organizations. Challenges for reorientation towards health promotion. Health Sociology Review, 24(2), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wissenschaftliche Dienste des deutschen Bundestages. (2007). Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Rahmen der Gesundheitsreform unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Datenschutzes.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helmut-Schmidt-UniversitätHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations