Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Using routine comparative data to assess the quality of health care: Understanding and avoiding common pitfalls

Lookup NU author(s): Emeritus Professor Richard Thomson


Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


Measuring the quality of health care has become a major concern for funders and providers of health services in recent decades. One of the ways in which quality of care is currently assessed is by taking routinely collected data and analysing them quantitatively. The use of routine data has many advantages but there are also some important pitfalls. Collating numerical data in this way means that comparisons can be made - whether over time, with benchmarks, or with other healthcare providers (at individual or institutional levels of aggregation). Inevitably, such comparisons reveal variations. The natural inclination is then to assume that such variations imply rankings: that the measures reflect quality and that variations in the measures reflect variations in quality. This paper identifies reasons why these assumptions need to be applied with care, and illustrates the pitfalls with examples from recent empirical work. It is intended to guide not only those who wish to interpret comparative quality data, but also those who wish to develop systems for such analyses themselves.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Powell AE, Davies HTO, Thomson RG

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Quality and Safety in Health Care

Year: 2003

Volume: 12

Issue: 2

Pages: 122-128

Print publication date: 01/04/2003

ISSN (print): 0963-8172

ISSN (electronic): 1475-3901

Publisher: BMJ Group


DOI: 10.1136/qhc.12.2.122

PubMed id: 12679509


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric