Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:00:02.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metrics, Targets and Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Philip Andrew Stevens ,
Lucy Stokes  and
Mary O'Mahony
Philip Andrew Stevens*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research and Medium Term Strategy Group, Ministry of Economic Development, New Zealand
Lucy Stokes
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Mary O'Mahony
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic Research and Birmingham Business School
*
e-mail: p.stevens@niesr.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The setting and use of targets in the public sector has generated a growing amount of interest in the UK. This has occurred at a time when more analysts and policymakers are grasping the nettle of measuring performance in and of the public sector. We outline a typology of performance indicators and a set of desiderata. We compare the outcome of a performance management system — star ratings for acute hospital trusts in England — with a productivity measure analogous to those used in the analysis of the private sector. We find that the two are almost entirely unrelated. Although this may be the case for entirely proper reasons, it does raise questions as to the appropriateness of such indicators of performance, particularly over the long term.

Keywords

Public sector performanceProductivityAcute TrustsH11H14I12I18
Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 197 , 01 July 2006 , pp. 80 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research reported here was funded by the ESRC, Grant no. RES-153-25-00 44. Thanks go to Gwyn Bevan, Rowena Jacobs, Martin Weale and participants at the 4th NIESR Public Sector Performance Conference, January 2006, for helpful comments, although the usual caveats apply.

References

Atkinson, A. (2005), ‘Measurement of government output and productivity for the national accounts’, Atkinson Review: Final Report, HMSO.Google Scholar
Bevan, G. (2006), ‘Setting targets for health care performance. Lessons from a case study of the English NHS’, National Institute Economic Review, 197.Google Scholar
Commission for Health Improvement (2003), ‘NHS performance ratings acute trusts, specialist trusts, ambulance trusts 2002/ 2003’, London, Commission for Health Improvement.Google Scholar
Cutler, T. (2002), ‘Star or black hole?’ Community Care, pp 40–41.Google Scholar
Dawson, D., Gravelle, H., O'Mahony, M., Street, A., Weale, M., Castelli, A., Jacobs, R., Kind, P., Loveridge, P., Martin, S., Stevens, P. and Stokes, L. (2005), ‘Developing new approaches to measuring NHS outputs and productivity’, NIESR Discussion Paper No. 264 and CHE Research Paper No. 6, available at: http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/nhsoutputsprod.pdf.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2001), ‘NHS performance ratings: acute trusts 2000/01’, London, Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2002a), ‘Reforming NHS financial flows: introducing payment by results’, London, Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2002b), ‘NHS performance ratings and indicators: acute trusts, specialist trusts, ambulance trusts, mental health trusts 2001/02’, London, Department of Health.Google Scholar
Hemingway, J. (2004), ‘Sources and methods for public service productivity: health’, Economic Trends, 613, pp. 82–90.Google Scholar
Healthcare Commission (2004), ‘2004 performance ratings’, London, Healthcare Commission.Google Scholar
Hill, A. (2003), ‘The UK government's public service agreement framework’, Background Paper, HM Treasury.Google Scholar
JRSS (2004), ‘Special issue on performance monitoring and surveillance’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 167, 3.Google Scholar
Kmietowicz, Z. (2003), ‘Star rating system fails to reduce variation’, British Medical Journal, 327, p. 184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, P. (2004), ‘Public service productivity: health’, Economic Trends, 613, pp. 38–59.Google Scholar
Mai, N. (2004), ‘Measuring health care output in the UK’, Economic Trends, 610, pp. 64–73.Google Scholar
Miller, N. (2002) ‘Missing the target’, Community Care, 21-27 November, pp. 36–8.Google Scholar
O'Mahony, M. (2006), ‘Outputs, inputs and productivity in the NHS’, presentation to NIESR/ESRC conference on ‘Public Sector Performance’, London, British Academy.Google Scholar
O'Mahony, M. and Stevens, P.A. (2002), ‘Measuring international comparative performance in the provision of public services: a review’, report to Evidence Based Policy Fund.Google Scholar
O'Mahony, M. and Stevens, P.A. (2003), ‘International comparisons of performance in the provision of public services: outcome based measures for education’, Presentation to NIESR conference on ‘Productivity and Performance in the Provision of Public Services’, London, British Academy.Google Scholar
OXREP (2003), ‘Special issue on financing and managing public services’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19, 2.Google Scholar
Pritchard, A. (2003), ‘Understanding government output and productivity’, Economic Trends, 596, pp. 27–40.Google Scholar
Pritchard, A. (2004), ‘Measuring government health services outputs in the UK national accounts: the new methodology and further analysis’, Economic Trends, 613, pp. 69–81.Google Scholar
Rowan, K., Harrison, D., Brady, A. and Black, N. (2004), ‘Hospitals’ star ratings and clinical outcomes: ecological study’ British Medical Journal, 328, pp. 924–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snelling, I. (2003), ‘Do star ratings really reflect hospital performance?’ Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17, pp. 210–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, P. (2005), ‘Assessing the performance of local government’, National Institute Economic Review, pp. 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar