Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Future Healthcare Journal

  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Future Healthcare Journal

futurehosp Logo
  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Clinical excellence scorecard

Shaveta Dewan, Anupam Sibal, Anil Kumar Tandon, Ravinder Singh Uberoi and Srinidhi Chidambaram
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/futurehosp.2-2-s26
Future Healthcare Journal June 2015
Shaveta Dewan
AApollo Hospitals Group, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anupam Sibal
AApollo Hospitals Group, India
BIndraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Delhi, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anil Kumar Tandon
AApollo Hospitals Group, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ravinder Singh Uberoi
BIndraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Delhi, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Srinidhi Chidambaram
CApollo Hospitals, Chennai, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Aims

The aim of the scorecard was to measure clinical outcomes objectively, benchmark them to the best available data from international institutions, and strive to achieve those benchmarks, thus ensuring clinical excellence for patients.

Methods

The scorecard consisted of 25 clinical quality parameters involving complication rates, mortality rates, 1-year survival rates and average length of stay (ALOS) after major procedures such as liver and renal transplant, coronary artery bypass graft, total knee replacement, total hip replacement, transurethral resection of the prostate, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, endoscopy, large bowel resection and modified radical mastectomy, covering all major specialties. It also included hospital-acquired infection rates, pain satisfaction and medication errors. Benchmarks were chosen from the world's best institutions including Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, National Healthcare Safety Network, Massachusetts General Hospital, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality US, Columbia University Medical Center and US Census Bureau. There were weighted scores for outcomes, colour coded green, orange and red. Cumulative score was 100.

Monthly data were reported online. Action-taken reports for parameters falling in red were submitted quarterly and reviewed by the board. A quarterly, half-yearly and annual analysis of the trends was done. An audit team audited the data every 6 months using a detailed audit guide. Scores were linked to appraisal of the medical head.

Results

Scores for different parameters were variable from green to red at the start of the initiative. While the challenge in the high-scoring parameters was to not let them dip, there were opportunities for improvement in parameters scoring in orange and red. Most parameters showed improvement and scores increased from the red or orange to the green zone over a period of time wherever required and then stabilised. The scorecard was updated every 2 years to improve the benchmarks, increase the scope and add new parameters.

Conclusions

The scorecard enhanced the focus on clinical outcomes, lent them an objectivity and subjected them to constant review. Improvement involved organisation-wide changes in personnel training, processes and procedures, both clinical and operational. The average score increased from 71 in January 2010 to 80 in December 2013, a shift from the orange zone to the green zone, thus proving the scorecard to be an effective tool in clinical governance.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Scoring for parameter (ALOS post-angioplasty) and benchmark (Cleveland clinic, 2.5 days).

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2015. All rights reserved.
Back to top
Previous article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Clinical excellence scorecard
Shaveta Dewan, Anupam Sibal, Anil Kumar Tandon, Ravinder Singh Uberoi, Srinidhi Chidambaram
Future Healthcare Journal Jun 2015, 2 (Suppl 2) s26; DOI: 10.7861/futurehosp.2-2-s26

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Clinical excellence scorecard
Shaveta Dewan, Anupam Sibal, Anil Kumar Tandon, Ravinder Singh Uberoi, Srinidhi Chidambaram
Future Healthcare Journal Jun 2015, 2 (Suppl 2) s26; DOI: 10.7861/futurehosp.2-2-s26
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Aims
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Conflict of interest statement
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The use of focus groups for improving communication with relatives on acute medical wards: an open-ended tool for quality improvement
  • Changing ward culture to prevent inpatient falls
Show more POLICY AND PROCESS

Similar Articles

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home

Other Services

  • Advertising
futurehosp Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians