TY - JOUR
T1 - Implementing hospital pay-for-performance
T2 - Lessons learned from the French pilot program
AU - Girault, Anne
AU - Bellanger, Martine
AU - Lalloué, Benoît
AU - Loirat, Philippe
AU - Moisdon, Jean Claude
AU - Minvielle, Etienne
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2017/4/1
Y1 - 2017/4/1
N2 - Despite a wide implementation of pay-for-performance (P4P) programs, evidence on their impact in hospitals is still limited. Our objective was to assess the implementation of the French P4P pilot program (IFAQ1) across 222 hospitals. The study consisted of a questionnaire among four leaders in each enrolled hospital, combined with a qualitative analysis based on 33 semi-structured interviews conducted with staff in four participating hospitals. For the questionnaire results, descriptive statistics were performed and responses were analyzed by job title. For the interviews, transcripts were analysed using coding techniques. Survey results showed that leaders were mostly positive about the program and reported a good level of awareness, in contrast to the frontline staff, who remained mostly unaware of the program's existence. The main barriers were attributed to lack of clarity in program rules, and to time constraints. Different strategies were then suggested by leaders. The qualitative results added further explanations for low program adoption among hospital staff, so far. Ultimately, although paying for quality is still an intuitive approach; gaps in program awareness within enrolled hospitals may pose an important challenge to P4P efficacy. Implementation evaluations are therefore necessary for policymakers to better understand P4P adoption processes among hospitals.
AB - Despite a wide implementation of pay-for-performance (P4P) programs, evidence on their impact in hospitals is still limited. Our objective was to assess the implementation of the French P4P pilot program (IFAQ1) across 222 hospitals. The study consisted of a questionnaire among four leaders in each enrolled hospital, combined with a qualitative analysis based on 33 semi-structured interviews conducted with staff in four participating hospitals. For the questionnaire results, descriptive statistics were performed and responses were analyzed by job title. For the interviews, transcripts were analysed using coding techniques. Survey results showed that leaders were mostly positive about the program and reported a good level of awareness, in contrast to the frontline staff, who remained mostly unaware of the program's existence. The main barriers were attributed to lack of clarity in program rules, and to time constraints. Different strategies were then suggested by leaders. The qualitative results added further explanations for low program adoption among hospital staff, so far. Ultimately, although paying for quality is still an intuitive approach; gaps in program awareness within enrolled hospitals may pose an important challenge to P4P efficacy. Implementation evaluations are therefore necessary for policymakers to better understand P4P adoption processes among hospitals.
KW - Implementation
KW - Incentive
KW - Pay for performance
KW - Qualitative evaluation
U2 - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.01.007
DO - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.01.007
M3 - Article
C2 - 28189271
AN - SCOPUS:85011878923
SN - 0168-8510
VL - 121
SP - 407
EP - 417
JO - Health Policy
JF - Health Policy
IS - 4
ER -