English | Français  

Home

Project Results

What is a Quality Measure?

Who is CEQM?

National Consensus

National Consensus Summary

Top 30 Quality Measures

Quality Measures Database

Priority Domains

Data Infrastructure

Measurement Implementation

Knowledge Transfer / Communication

Project Activities

Contact

Links



Staff/Partner log-in
  

Top 30 Quality Measures

Wait Times for Services Overall Rank: 26 Best in Domain
Average access time for urgent, emergent, and routine services.
Domain : Accessibility
Clients/patients are able to obtain care and services at the right place and the right time, based on their respective needs. Accessibility would include such things as waiting times, physician availability, geographical proximity, extended service hours, etc.
Rationale
There is a Priorities and Planning Framework 2003-2006 target to ensure 100% of patients who wish to do so can see a primary healthcare professional within one working day and a GP within two working days by December 2004.
Primary Reference
Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. (2005). Performance indicators for the performance ratings 2004/2005. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from http://ratings.healthcarecommission.org.uk/Indicators_2005/Downloads/PCTList.pdf.
Level of Evidence
III: Preliminary research evidence only or evidence based on consensus opinion only.

Summarized CommentsAdd Comment
  • Median and average wait times would not reflect the extremes of distribution very well (i.e very long and very short wait times). It would be better to have accurate figures of the distribution of wait times rather than averages.
  • I agree that overall wait times should be divided into wait times for urgent/emergent/routine services so that it becomes more relevant. A non-urgent issue can wait longer than an emergent or urgent issue (think of the ER triage system - one may not mind
  • It needs to be measured appropriately.
  • The average access time to urgent, emergent and routine services is of key importance to reduce the impact and burden of disease.
Variation in Results
Ratings-based Rank
Relevance 32
Actionability 24
Overall Importance 23
 
Stakeholder Rank
Academics 28
Clinicians 9
Consumers 48
Decision Makers 12
 
Special Group Rank
First Nations 37
Rural Areas 30
Federal Stakeholders 27
Regional Rank
BC AB SK MB ON QC NB NS PE NL YT NT NU
35 25 22 87 24 28 59 26 20 67 3 20 74
 
Overall Rank

      

26


SW01f (H327)

 
Distribution of Survey Respondent Ratings
Relevance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.53 0 0 1.43 1.6 3.74 12.43 48.96 31.29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Actionability
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.53 0 0.72 1.92 3.45 9.12 21.5 41.1 21.66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Overall Importance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.5 15.32 83.18
3 2 1

3 = can live without
2 = nice to have
1 = indispensable

Copyright © 2006 CEQM and CARMHA • infoceqm-acmq.com

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official policies of Health Canada