IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v67y2018icp113-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using benchmarking to assist the improvement of service quality in home support services for older people—IN TOUCH (Integrated Networks Towards Optimising Understanding of Community Health)

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobs, Stephen P.
  • Parsons, Matthew
  • Rouse, Paul
  • Parsons, John
  • Gunderson-Reid, Michelle

Abstract

Service providers and funders need ways to work together to improve services. Identifying critical performance variables provides a mechanism by which funders can understand what they are purchasing without getting caught up in restrictive service specifications that restrict the ability of service providers to meet the needs of the clients. An implementation pathway and benchmarking programme called IN TOUCH provided contracted providers of home support and funders with a consistent methodology to follow when developing and implementing new restorative approaches for service delivery. Data from performance measurement was used to triangulate the personal and social worlds of the stakeholders enabling them to develop a shared understanding of what is working and what is not. The initial implementation of IN TOUCH involved five District Health Boards. The recursive dialogue encouraged by the IN TOUCH programme supports better and more sustainable service development because performance management is anchored to agreed data that has meaning to all stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobs, Stephen P. & Parsons, Matthew & Rouse, Paul & Parsons, John & Gunderson-Reid, Michelle, 2018. "Using benchmarking to assist the improvement of service quality in home support services for older people—IN TOUCH (Integrated Networks Towards Optimising Understanding of Community Health)," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 113-121.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:67:y:2018:i:c:p:113-121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.12.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917301829
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.12.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jim Sheffield, 2004. "The Design of GSS-Enabled Interventions: A Habermasian Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 415-435, September.
    2. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos Martin-Rios, 2016. "Innovative management control systems in knowledge work: a middle manager perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 181-204, May.
    2. Verena Brinks, 2016. "Situated affect and collective meaning: A community perspective on processes of value creation and commercialization in enthusiast-driven fields," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1152-1169, June.
    3. Stefan Gröschl & Patricia Gabaldón & Tobias Hahn, 2019. "The Co-evolution of Leaders’ Cognitive Complexity and Corporate Sustainability: The Case of the CEO of Puma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 741-762, March.
    4. Elena Antonacopoulou, 2018. "Energising critique in action and in learning: The GNOSIS 4R Framework," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 102-125, May.
    5. Guiette, Alain & Vandenbempt, Koen, 2017. "Change managerialism and micro-processes of sensemaking during change implementation," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 65-81.
    6. Martina Linnenluecke & Andrew Griffiths & Peter Mumby, 2015. "Executives’ engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 321-333, July.
    7. Per Engelseth & Richard Glavee-Geo & Artur Janusz & Enoch Niboi, 2020. "The Emergent Nature of Networked Sustainable Procurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    9. Jeffery S. McMullen & Dimo Dimov, 2013. "Time and the Entrepreneurial Journey: The Problems and Promise of Studying Entrepreneurship as a Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1481-1512, December.
    10. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    11. Minkkinen, Matti, 2019. "The anatomy of plausible futures in policy processes: Comparing the cases of data protection and comprehensive security," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 172-180.
    12. Stea, Diego & Foss, Nicolai J. & Christensen, Peter Holdt, 2015. "Physical separation in the workplace: Separation cues, separation awareness, and employee motivation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 462-471.
    13. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    14. Tiina J. Peltola & Hanna Tiirinki, 2020. "More Than Numbers: Discourses of Health Care Quality in Finland," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    15. Rydén, Pernille & Ringberg, Torsten & Wilke, Ricky, 2015. "How Managers' Shared Mental Models of Business–Customer Interactions Create Different Sensemaking of Social Media," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-16.
    16. Amal Aouadi & Sylvain Marsat, 2018. "Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1027-1047, September.
    17. Joseph McManus, 2021. "Emotions and Ethical Decision Making at Work: Organizational Norms, Emotional Dogs, and the Rational Tales They Tell Themselves and Others," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 153-168, February.
    18. Hendrik Vollmer, 2013. "What kind of game is everyday interaction?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 25(3), pages 370-404, August.
    19. Tongyu Meng & Jamie Newth & Christine Woods, 2022. "Ethical Sensemaking in Impact Investing: Reasons and Motives in the Chinese Renewable Energy Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(4), pages 1091-1117, September.
    20. Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten & Mariëlle Hengst-Bruggeling & Gert-Jan Vreede, 2007. "Issues in the Design of Facilitated Collaboration Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 347-361, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:67:y:2018:i:c:p:113-121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.