Measuring the sustainability of a national economy. The application of three measures of sustainability to Ireland

An assessment of the sustainability of the Irish economy has been carried out using three methodologies, enabling comparison and evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each, and potential synergies among them. The three measures chosen were economy-wide Material Flow Analysis (MFA), environmentally extended input-output (EE-IO) analysis and the Ecological Footprint (EF). The research aims to assess the sustainability of the Irish economy using these methods and to draw conclusions on their effectiveness in policy making both individually and in combination. A theoretical description discusses the methods and their respective advantages and disadvantages and sets out a rationale for their combined application. The application of the methods in combination has provided insights into measuring the sustainability of a national economy and generated new knowledge on the collective application of these methods. The limitations of the research are acknowledged and opportunities to address these and build on and extend the research are identified. Building on previous research, it is concluded that a complete picture of sustainability cannot be provided by a single method and/or indicator.

UK consensus project on quality in palliative day services: developing a quality indicator set using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method

Introduction
Evaluating quality of palliative day services is essential for assessing care across diverse settings, and for monitoring quality improvement approaches.

Aim
To develop a set of quality indicators for assessment of all aspects (structure, process and outcome) of care in palliative day services.

Methods
Using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (Fitch et al., 2001), a multidisciplinary panel of 16 experts independently completed a survey rating the appropriateness of 182 potential quality indicators previously identified during a systematic evidence review. Panel members then attended a one day, face-to-face meeting where indicators were discussed and subsequently re-rated. Panel members were also asked to rate the feasibility and necessity of measuring each indicator.

Results
71 indicators classified as inappropriate during the survey were removed based on median appropriateness ratings and level of agreement. Following the panel discussions, a further 60 were removed based on appropriateness and feasibility ratings, level of agreement and assessment of necessity. Themes identified during the panel discussion and findings of the evidence review were used to translate the remaining 51 indicators into a final set of 27.

Conclusion
The final indicator set included information on rationale and supporting evidence, methods of assessment, risk adjustment, and recommended performance levels. Further implementation work will test the suitability of this ‘toolkit’ for measurement and benchmarking. The final indicator set provides the basis for standardised assessment of quality across services, including care delivered in community and primary care settings.

Reference

• Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2001. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1269