Benchmarking Regional Health Management (BenRHM I & II)

For years, countries in Europe have been struggling with the notion of how best to structure and adapt health systems in order to provide universal access for all citizens, effective care for better health outcomes, efficient use of resources, and high quality services and responsiveness to patient concerns. Today, there is emerging consensus that better health systems are essential to achieving improved health outcomes.

This two year EU co-funded project aimed to achieve increased transparency among the different regional health systems in Europe as well as to offer a platform on which regions could learn from each other using the variations of regional health care regulations and activities to improve health governance and public health.

Interregional comparative and evaluative studies of health management systems in Europe are needed to assess the effectiveness of programmes and activities. The project “Benchmarking Regional Health Management II” (Ben RHM II) follows this path.

In Benchmarking Regional Health Management, the health management systems of 19 European regions were compared with regard to their structures, processes, policies and health outcomes. The benchmarking process served to identify points where structures and methods for reaching the envisaged targets could be improved.

Partners
Institute of Public Health North Rhine-Westphalia (lögd)
University of Linz
Flemish Ministry for Welfare, Public Health and Family Affairs Brussels
National Institute of Public Health, Prague
Ministry of Employment, Health and Social affairs of the state of North-Rhine Westfalia, Bielfeld
University of Patras Greece
Public Health Office, Gyor
Debrecen University
The Health Service Executive, Dublin
WHO European Office
University of Brighton

“Organigraphs” were developed as a new approach to charting how organisations work. An “organigraph” is intended to map processes in order to understand critical interactions, what relationships exist, how information spreads through the organisation and so demonstrate how the organisation – or the regional health management respectively – works.

All 19 of the participating regions submitted “organigraphs” for measles. Programme descriptions were received from 16 regions. Whilst the “organigraphs” can give an overview of the health management system, the programme descriptions can give a number of more detailed insights into the system. The “organigraphs” and programme descriptions reflect very well the complexity of the health management system that can involve so many different organizations and actors at the different levels, national, regional and local.

“Organigraphs” for breast cancer were received from 17 of the 19 regions. Programme descriptions were received from 15 regions. “Organigraphs” for diabetes were received from 17 of the 19 regions. Programme descriptions were received from 15 regions.

To conclude, with the help of the developed methodology we could identify first good practices and have received many hints how the health management in the participating regions could be improved. For a deeper insight into European health management systems, benchmarking studies should be encouraged. Benchmarking processes among regions should also be stimulated using further tracers to identify where health managements could be improved.

Publications

Schroder-Back, P, Brand, H, Escamilla, I, Davies, J.K, Hall, C Hickey, K., Jelastopulu, E., Mechtler, R., and Volf, J. (2009). Ethical Evaluation of Compulsory Measles Immunisation as a Benchmark for Good Health Management in the European Union. Central European Journal of Public Health, 17(4): 183-186

Schroder, P, Brand, H, Davies, J.K., Hall, C et al (2005). Benchmarking Regional Health Management (BENRHM I). Final report to the European Commission, Institute of Public Health North Rhine-Westphalia (lögd)

Schroder, P, Brand, H, Davies, J.K., Hall, C et al (2006) Reference Frameworks for the Health Management of Measles, Breast Cancer and Diabetes (Type II). Central European Journal of Public Health, 14(1): 39-45