Within the health care system, the foundation of all professions, equipment, and policies are mostly centered on patients. For the betterment of a population, whether it is local, regional, or national, the quality of care should overrule the quantity of care given. However, shifting towards the pay-for-performance system brings new complications into light.
Intuitively, pay-for-performance would be a great approach to help health care practitioners to value how services are provided rather than how many services are provided to a patient. The advantage of introducing this system allows professions to, for example, reiterate the importance of sterility in hospitals and clinics. Strengthening core practices will help health care providers …show more content…
According to Jeremy Petch and Andreas Laupacis in their Money matters: does ‘pay-for-performance improve quality? article, they highlighted a study where “the effectiveness of this program showed… limited impact (Petch, Laupacis, 2012).” All articles mentioned that collecting supporting data for the use of such programs is difficult; it includes challenges of implementation to a variety of populations, the controversy between payer and provider, and overall measuring capacities. Consequently, if the health care industry were to use pay-for-performance, it would be tough to create SMART objectives, as measurable and time bound specifications can be difficult to attain. If it were already difficult to assess how health care providers are providing the appropriate services to their patients, then the variety of occupations in the health care system make it more challenging to measure. New and advanced technology to monitor the quality of patient care can be used however, in terms of fairness, some professionals that work, for example, in a high-risk environment may require frequent performance evaluations than others. Discussing pay-for-performance in open dialogue may put an organization at risk, especially when “[p]roviders may avoid treating patients who …show more content…
It does introduce competition and although it is inevitable when comparing a high-risk profession to a low-risk profession, it may become a barrier during interprofessional encounters. If discussing performance can be done privately and overall concluded into the performance score of an organization as a whole, then it may not be a grand issue. If a conclusive approach is taken then it becomes difficult to compare scores and improve when looking at different sites across an area. In Ontario, Nuclear Medicine Technologists specifically have their own college that provides its members with insurance and revision of competencies. Therefore, using a college specific to a set of services already can help measure performance, whether it be quality or quantity based. This may not be useful in a clinical setting as some professions have an additional set of responsibilities and taking the time to critically assess their quality of care given may be time problematic. Furthermore, managing performance reviews would be easy in terms of corresponding pay to the provider but if pay and service do not correlate appropriately then it becomes a hassle to correct it. Speaking to individuals for their performance reviews would not be personal or welcoming, especially for poor performances. Booking and organizing each individual’s performance review could be a delegated task on behalf of a manager but again, if
Intuitively, pay-for-performance would be a great approach to help health care practitioners to value how services are provided rather than how many services are provided to a patient. The advantage of introducing this system allows professions to, for example, reiterate the importance of sterility in hospitals and clinics. Strengthening core practices will help health care providers …show more content…
According to Jeremy Petch and Andreas Laupacis in their Money matters: does ‘pay-for-performance improve quality? article, they highlighted a study where “the effectiveness of this program showed… limited impact (Petch, Laupacis, 2012).” All articles mentioned that collecting supporting data for the use of such programs is difficult; it includes challenges of implementation to a variety of populations, the controversy between payer and provider, and overall measuring capacities. Consequently, if the health care industry were to use pay-for-performance, it would be tough to create SMART objectives, as measurable and time bound specifications can be difficult to attain. If it were already difficult to assess how health care providers are providing the appropriate services to their patients, then the variety of occupations in the health care system make it more challenging to measure. New and advanced technology to monitor the quality of patient care can be used however, in terms of fairness, some professionals that work, for example, in a high-risk environment may require frequent performance evaluations than others. Discussing pay-for-performance in open dialogue may put an organization at risk, especially when “[p]roviders may avoid treating patients who …show more content…
It does introduce competition and although it is inevitable when comparing a high-risk profession to a low-risk profession, it may become a barrier during interprofessional encounters. If discussing performance can be done privately and overall concluded into the performance score of an organization as a whole, then it may not be a grand issue. If a conclusive approach is taken then it becomes difficult to compare scores and improve when looking at different sites across an area. In Ontario, Nuclear Medicine Technologists specifically have their own college that provides its members with insurance and revision of competencies. Therefore, using a college specific to a set of services already can help measure performance, whether it be quality or quantity based. This may not be useful in a clinical setting as some professions have an additional set of responsibilities and taking the time to critically assess their quality of care given may be time problematic. Furthermore, managing performance reviews would be easy in terms of corresponding pay to the provider but if pay and service do not correlate appropriately then it becomes a hassle to correct it. Speaking to individuals for their performance reviews would not be personal or welcoming, especially for poor performances. Booking and organizing each individual’s performance review could be a delegated task on behalf of a manager but again, if