Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 May 23;22(1):690.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08032-z.

Incentivizing performance in health care: a rapid review, typology and qualitative study of unintended consequences

Affiliations
Review

Incentivizing performance in health care: a rapid review, typology and qualitative study of unintended consequences

Xinyu Li et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Health systems are increasingly implementing policy-driven programs to incentivize performance using contracts, scorecards, rankings, rewards, and penalties. Studies of these "Performance Management" (PM) programs have identified unintended negative consequences. However, no single comprehensive typology of the negative and positive unintended consequences of PM in healthcare exists and most studies of unintended consequences were conducted in England or the United States. The aims of this study were: (1) To develop a comprehensive typology of unintended consequences of PM in healthcare, and (2) To describe multiple stakeholder perspectives of the unintended consequences of PM in cancer and renal care in Ontario, Canada.

Methods: We conducted a rapid review of unintended consequences of PM in healthcare (n = 41 papers) to develop a typology of unintended consequences. We then conducted a secondary analysis of data from a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 147 participants involved with or impacted by a PM system used to oversee 40 care delivery networks in Ontario, Canada. Participants included administrators and clinical leads from the networks and the government agency managing the PM system. We undertook a hybrid inductive and deductive coding approach using the typology we developed from the rapid review.

Results: We present a comprehensive typology of 48 negative and positive unintended consequences of PM in healthcare, including five novel unintended consequences not previously identified or well-described in the literature. The typology is organized into two broad categories: unintended consequences on (1) organizations and providers and on (2) patients and patient care. The most common unintended consequences of PM identified in the literature were measure fixation, tunnel vision, and misrepresentation or gaming, while those most prominent in the qualitative data were administrative burden, insensitivity, reduced morale, and systemic dysfunction. We also found that unintended consequences of PM are often mutually reinforcing.

Conclusions: Our comprehensive typology provides a common language for discourse on unintended consequences and supports systematic, comparable analyses of unintended consequences across PM regimes and healthcare systems. Healthcare policymakers and managers can use the results of this study to inform the (re-)design and implementation of evidence-informed PM programs.

Keywords: Health systems; Performance management; Performance measurement; Quality indicators; Unintended consequences.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA Flow Diagram for Rapid Review on Unintended Consequences of Performance Management in Healthcare
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Relationships Among Unintended Consequences Based on Interview Data

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Smith PC. Performance management in British health care: will it deliver? Health Aff. 2002;21(3):103–115. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.3.103. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freeman T. Using performance indicators to improve health care quality in the public sector: a review of the literature. Health Serv Manag Res. 2002;15:126–137. doi: 10.1258/0951484021912897. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lester HE, Hannon KL, Campbell SM. Identifying unintended consequences of quality indicators: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(12):1057–1061. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048371. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liu D, Green E, Kasteridis P, Goddard M, Jacobs R, Wittenberg R, et al. Incentive schemes to increase dementia diagnosis in primary care in England: a retrospective cohort study of unintended consequences. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(680):e154–e163. doi: 10.3399/bjgp19X701513. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mannion R, Braithwaite J. Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Intern Med J. 2012;42:569–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02766.x. - DOI - PubMed