Performance Evaluation In Family Physician: The Application of TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method

Abstract

In this study, a performance analysis was carried out for the Family Practice application offered to the public by the Ministry of Health.

Performance management serves a different purpose in public sectors which provide service in accordance with the principle of social benefit rather than of a profit-loss relationship in comparison with private sectors. Main objective herein is to improve the quality of the service offered to the public in terms of such criteria as efficacy, efficiency and productivity.

In this study, the performances of 12 Family Practice units carrying on business in Alaca district of Corum in the months of the year of 2012 were converted into a single score indicating the general performance level with the help of the TOPSIS method among the Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques through the data of 8 criteria and such units were put into order in this regard and their performances were compared. 

At the end of the study, the proximity values (Ci) of the units according to the ideal solution they have received for 12 months were averaged and rated on a yearly basis.   According to the average of Ci scores, the performances of 4 units were founded to be successful whereas 5 units displayed normal performance and the performance of 3 units were decided to be ineffective. 

Aile Hekimliği Performans Değerlemesinin TOPSIS Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemiyle Belirlenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada Sağlık Bakanlığı tarafından halka sunulan Aile Hekimliği uygulamasının performans analizi yapılmıştır.

Kar-zarar ilişkisinden çok toplumsal fayda ilkesine göre hizmet üreten kamu sektörlerinde, performans yönetimi özel sektörlere göre farklı bir amaca hizmet etmektedir.  Temel hedef halka sunulan hizmet kalitesini etkinlik, etkililik ve verimlilik kriterleri ekseninde geliştirmektir.

Bu çalışmada Çorum ili Alaca ilçesinde faaliyet gösteren 12 Aile Hekimliği biriminin 2012 yılına ait aylardaki performansları, 8 adet kriter verileri üzerinden Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Tekniklerinden TOPSİS yöntemi ile genel performansı gösteren tek bir puana çevrilmiş ve birimler arasında sıralama yapılarak, performansları karşılaştırılmıştır.

Çalışmanın sonucunda birimlerin 12 ay boyunca aldıkları ideal çözüme göre yakınlık değerleri (Ci)’nin ortalaması alınarak yıllık bazda bir sıralama oluşturulmuştur. Ci puanlarının ortalamasına göre,  4 birimin performansları başarılı bulunurken, 5 birim normal performans göstermiş, 3 birimin performansının ise başarısız olarak saptanmıştır.

References

1. Tuzer, T. T. , Görpelioglu ,S.( 2001). Family Practice New Turkey Health Private Issue, 39, 845-853
2. Kilic S.(2006) . Performance Assessment System and Application in Family Practice Published Post Graduate Project). Kocaeli University/ Institute of Social Sciences, Kocaeli . p. 58
3. Aydin, S. (Ed.) (2004) Family Practice Turkey Model, Ankara: Publication of Ministry of Health, pp. 36-37
4. Ersoy, F. (2005) Family Practice, Ministry of Health Dialogue Magazine, 9, 41-48
5. Kubali, D. (1999), Performance Auditing, Public Administration Magazine 32, 31-62
6. Balci, A., Kirilmaz, H.(2005). Performance Based Charges and Applicability in Public Sector: Performance-based additional payment system from Revolving Funds in the Ministry of Health. Istanbul: Beta.
7. Ministry of Health Head of IT Department (2007) Performance Measurement Method in Family Practice Application (Version 2.1) . Ankara: Ministry of Health
8. Uyargil, C. (2000). Human Sources Management Istanbul: University of Istanbul. Faculty of Management Publication, p. 178-180

9. Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
10. Gomes, C.F., Yasin, M.M. and Lisboa, J.V. (2004b), “A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research”, The International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 511-30.
11. Ballantine, J., Brignall, S. and Modell, S. (1998), “Performance measurement and management in public health services: a comparison of UK and Swedish practice”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 71-94.
12. Denton, G. and White, B. (2000), “Implementing a balanced-scorecard approach to managing hotel operations”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 94-107.
13. Neely, A., Adams, C. and Kenerly, M. (2002), The Performance Prism – The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Success, Pearson Education Limited, London
14. Jones, C.R. (2004), “A ‘scorecard’ for service excellence”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 45-54.
15. Phillips, P. and Louvieris, P. (2005), “Performance measurement systems in tourism, hospitality, and leisure small medium-sized enterprises: a balanced scorecard perspective”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 201-11.
16. Kang, H. and Bradley, G. (2002), “Measuring the performance of IT services: an assessment of SERVQUAL”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 151-64.
17. Parasuraman, A. (2004), “Assessing and improving service performance for maximum impact: insights from a two-decade-long research journey”, Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 45-52.
18. Chow, C.C. and Luk, P. (2005), “A strategic service quality approach using analytic hierarchy process”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 278-89.
19. Carr, C.L. (2007), “The Fairserv model: consumer reactions to services based on a multidimentional evaluation of service fairness”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 107-30.
20. Brignall, S. and Modell, S. (2000), “An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 281-306.
21. Johnsen, A. (2001), “Balanced scorecard: theoretical perspectives and public management implications”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 319-330.
22. Chan, Y.-C.L. (2004), “Performance measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards: a survey of municipal governments in the USA and Canada”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 204-21.
23. Wisniewski, M. and O ´ lafsson, S. (2004), “Developing balanced scorecards in local authorities: a comparison of experience”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 602-10.
24. World Health Organization (WHO) (2003), How Can Hospital Performance be Measured and Monitored, Who Europe Office.
25. Tengilimoglu, D., Toygar, S.A. (2013). PATH Method in the Measurement of Hospital Performance Social Security Magazine 2013/, s.50-78
26. Aksoy, B. (2001). Assessment of Physician Performance in hospitals.(Not published Post graduate Project), Baskent University/ Institute of social sciences, Ankara p. 12
27. Erkan, A. (2011). Payment depending on Performance: Ministry of Health Application. Revenue Office magazine, 160, pp.423-437
28. Corum Public Health Directorate (2013) , http://www.corumhsm.gov.tr/tr/a-h-performans-verileri-2.html (Access 10.06.2013)
29. Ozden, Ü. H. (2009). Performances of Deposit Banks in Turkey Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Taking Methods Ankara: Details, p. 75
30. Mahmoodzadeh, S., Shahrabi, J., Zaeri, M.S. (2007). Project Selection by Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Technique, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 30, p.333-338
31. Dumanoglu, S., Ergul, N. (2010). Financial Performance Measurement of Technology Companies operating in Istanbul Stock Exchange. Accounting and Finance Magazine.48, pp.101-111
32. Balli, S.,Korukoglu, S. (2009). Operating system Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Methods , Mathematical and Computational Applications. 14(2), pp. 119-130
33. Kiter, G., Uçan,E.S. (2001). Tuberculosis Prevention, Turk Toraks Magazine. 2 (1), s.85-90
34. Vaccine Counseling Center was accessed from the address of.http://asidanisma.com/2012_CEHD_Genisletilmis_Asi_Takvimi_a.asp on June 13th, 2013.
35. Uygurturk H., Korkmaz T. (2012), Determination of Financial Performance with TOPSIS Multi Criteria Decision Method: an Application on Main Matal Operations. University of Eskişehir Osmangazi IIBF Magazine, 7(2), page.95-115