Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To review and update the conceptual framework, indicator content and research priorities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) project, after a decade of collaborative work. DESIGN: A structured assessment was carried out using a modified Delphi approach, followed by a consensus meeting, to assess the suite of HCQI for international comparisons, agree on revisions to the original framework and set priorities for research and development. SETTING: International group of countries participating to OECD projects. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the OECD HCQI expert group. RESULTS: A reference matrix, based on a revised performance framework, was used to map and assess all seventy HCQI routinely calculated by the OECD expert group. A total of 21 indicators were agreed to be excluded, due to the following concerns: (i) relevance, (ii) international comparability, particularly where heterogeneous coding practices might induce bias, (iii) feasibility, when the number of countries able to report was limited and the added value did not justify sustained effort and (iv) actionability, for indicators that were unlikely to improve on the basis of targeted policy interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The revised OECD framework for HCQI represents a new milestone of a long-standing international collaboration among a group of countries committed to building common ground for performance measurement. The expert group believes that the continuation of this work is paramount to provide decision makers with a validated toolbox to directly act on quality improvement strategies.

Priority issues in occupational cancer research: Ontario stakeholder perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Workers are potentially exposed to known and suspected carcinogens in the workplace, many of which have not been fully evaluated. Despite persistent need, research on occupational cancer appears to have declined in recent decades. The formation of the Occupational Cancer Research Centre (OCRC) is an effort to counter this downward trend in Ontario. The OCRC conducted a survey of the broad stakeholder community to learn about priority issues on occupational cancer research. METHODS: The OCRC received 177 responses to its survey from academic, health care, policy, industry, and labour-affiliated stakeholders. Responses were analyzed based on workplace exposures, at-risk occupations and cancers by organ system, stratified by respondents' occupational role. DISCUSSION: Priority issues identified included workplace exposures such as chemicals, respirable dusts and fibres (e.g. asbestos), radiation (e.g. electromagnetic fields), pesticides, and shift work; and occupations such as miners, construction workers, and health care workers. Insufficient funding and a lack of exposure data were identified as the central barriers to conducting occupational cancer research. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey underscore the great need for occupational cancer research in Ontario and beyond. They will be very useful as the OCRC develops its research agenda.