Volume 197 - Issue 6

The use of key performance indicators to benchmark individual clinic performance in managing a complex chronic infectious disease

Authors:  Mark D Kelly, Jennifer K Broom and Sharon Young

Med J Aust 2012; 197 (6): 330-331. || doi: 10.5694/mja12.10126
Published online: 17 September 2012
To the Editor: The focus of HIV clinical care has shifted since the advent of potent antiretroviral therapy (ART). This change is characterised by a reduction in HIV-specific morbidities, an increase in HIV non-specific comorbidities,1,2 and an accompanying lack of clinician confidence in managing these comorbidities.3 The measurement of key performance indicators (KPIs) is useful for monitoring and improving clinical performance, but it is yet ...

To the Editor: The focus of HIV clinical care has shifted since the advent of potent antiretroviral therapy (ART). This change is characterised by a reduction in HIV-specific morbidities, an increase in HIV non-specific comorbidities,1,2 and an accompanying lack of clinician confidence in managing these comorbidities.3 The measurement of key performance indicators (KPIs) is useful for monitoring and improving clinical performance, but it is yet to be widely adopted in HIV clinics in Australia.4

As part of this pilot study, KPIs were developed by clinicians involved in HIV clinical care across Queensland. Clinic performance was measured in ART-related and non-ART-related care domains (Box). A clinic achieved a given KPI for a patient if the result was documented in the clinical file, regardless of whether the investigation was performed by the HIV clinic or another care provider.

The objective of this study was to permit individual clinics to measure their performance and compare it with that of their peers, and to adopt systems to improve care delivery in areas of suboptimal performance. Four publicly funded clinics participated, and data were collected for the 2010 calendar year. In total, 963 patients with HIV attended these clinics in 2010, which equates to 44% of the estimated number of patients with HIV in Queensland.5 In general, performance was of a high standard in ART-related care domains (Box, KPI 1–2). The state total results ranged from 92% to 97%, and individual clinic results ranged from 80% to 100% (Box). In contrast, performance was less comprehensive in non-ART-related care domains (Box, KPI 3–6). The state total results varied from 54% to 86%, and those of individual clinics varied from 36.9% to 98.2%.

The measurement of KPIs is likely to improve clinical outcomes in areas of rapidly evolving practice such as HIV medicine. With a movement towards outcome assessment and activity-based funding in health care in Australia, it is essential to develop clinically relevant performance measures that can be applied in a variety of clinical settings.


Authors


Competing interests


References