During the last few years, the interest in performance measurement increased within the healthcare sector. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems needed to boost performance measurement systems to become more resilient and improve their capability in monitoring key performance indicators. Since the 1990s, the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) model has been widely used among private and public organizations as it is the most adopted model to measure performance. The current paper aims at understanding the evolution of BSC in healthcare. The systematic literature review has been carried out by searching keywords according to PRISMA guidelines. By analyzing papers through one classification of BSC adoption phases, the results reveal that studies focused mainly on the BSC design process, rather than BSC implementation, use, or review. However, there is no agreement about the perspectives to be adopted in healthcare. Concerning BSC implementation and use, on one side especially leadership, culture and communication enable the BSC implementation. On the other side, monitoring and strategic decision-making are the most widespread objectives for using BSC. Concerning BSC review, however, the paper highlights a need for additional research. Finally, the paper provides further research opportunities concerning the phases suitable for implementing a BSC in healthcare.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care , Health Facilities , Humans , Leadership
Organizations worldwide utilize the balanced scorecard (BSC) for their performance evaluation (PE). This research aims to provide a tool that engages health care workers (HCWs) in BSC implementation (BSC-HCW1). Additionally, it seeks to translate and validate it at Palestinian hospitals. In a cross-sectional study, 454 questionnaires were retrieved from 14 hospitals. The composite reliability (CR), interitem correlation (IIC), and corrected item total correlation (CITC) were evaluated. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used. In both EFA and CFA, the scale demonstrated a good level of model fit. All the items had loadings greater than 0.50. All factors passed the discriminant validity. Although certain factors' convergent validity was less than 0.50, their CR, IIC, and CITC were adequate. The final best fit model had nine factors and 28 items in CFA. The BSC-HCW1 is the first self-administered questionnaire to engage HCWs in assessing the BSC dimensions following all applicable rules and regulations. The findings revealed that this instrument's psychometric characteristics were adequate. Therefore, the BSC-HCW1 can be utilized to evaluate BSC perspectives and dimensions. It will help managers highlight which BSC dimension predicts HCW satisfaction and loyalty and examine differences depending on HCWs' and hospital characteristics.
Subject(s)Health Personnel , Hospitals , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires
BACKGROUND: The balanced scorecard (BSC) has been implemented to evaluate the performance of health care organizations (HCOs). BSC proved to be effective in improving financial performance and patient satisfaction. AIM: This systematic review aims to identify all the perspectives, dimensions, and KPIs that are vital and most frequently used by health care managers in BSC implementations. METHODS: This systematic review adheres to PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases and Google search engine were inspected to find all implementations of BSC at HCO. The risk of bias was assessed using the nonrandomized intervention studies (ROBINS-I) tool to evaluate the quality of observational and quasi-experimental studies and the Cochrane (RoB 2) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: There were 33 eligible studies, of which we identified 36 BSC implementations. The categorization and regrouping of the 797 KPIs resulted in 45 subdimensions. The reassembly of these subdimensions resulted in 13 major dimensions: financial, efficiency and effectiveness, availability and quality of supplies and services, managerial tasks, health care workers' (HCWs) scientific development error-free and safety, time, HCW-centeredness, patient-centeredness, technology, and information systems, community care and reputation, HCO building, and communication. On the other hand, this review detected that BSC design modification to include external and managerial perspectives was necessary for many BSC implementations. CONCLUSION: This review solves the KPI categorization dilemma. It also guides researchers and health care managers in choosing dimensions for future BSC implementations and performance evaluations in general. Consequently, dimension uniformity will improve the data sharing and comparability among studies. Additionally, despite the pandemic negatively influencing many dimensions, the researchers observed a lack of comprehensive HCO performance evaluations. In the same vein, although some resulting dimensions were assessed separately during the pandemic, other dimensions still lack investigation. Last, BSC dimensions may play an essential role in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. However, further research is required to investigate the BSC implementation effect in mitigating the pandemic consequences on HCO.