The Measure of an Outcome: Comparing Norming and Stacking to Benchmark the Effectiveness of Brain Injury Rehabilitation Services.

Abstract

Practitioners have a clinical, ethical, academic, and economic responsibility to dispassionately consider how effective their services are. Approaches to measure how "good" or "bad" healthcare is include clinical audit, satisfaction surveys, and routine outcome measurement. However, the process of comparing the clinical outcomes of a specific service against the 'best' services in the same specialism, also known as benchmarking, remains challenging, and it is unclear how it affects quality improvement. This paper piloted and compared two different approaches to benchmarking to assess clinical outcomes in neurorehabilitation. Norming involved comparing routine measures of clinical outcome with external validators. Stacking involved pooling and comparing internal data across several years. The analyses of routine clinical outcome data from 167 patients revealed significant differences in the patient characteristics of those admitted to the same service provider over time, but no differences in outcomes achieved when comparing with historical data or with external reference data. These findings illustrate the potential advantages and limitations of using stacking and norming to benchmark clinical outcomes, and how the results from each approach might be used to evaluate service effectiveness and inform quality improvement within the field of brain injury rehabilitation.