HMGT 495 CASESTYDY 2

Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07452-7

RESEARCH

The deployment of balanced scorecard in health care organizations: is it beneficial? A systematic review Faten Amer1,2* , Sahar Hammoud1, Haitham Khatatbeh1, Szimonetta Lohner3, Imre Boncz2 and Dóra Endrei2

Abstract

Background: Balanced Scorecard (BSC) has been implemented for three decades to evaluate and improve the per- formance of organizations. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, no previous systematic review has performed a comprehensive and rigorous methodological approach to figure out the impact of BSC implementation in Health Care Organizations (HCO).

Aims: The current work was intended to assess the impact of implementing the BSC on Health Care Workers’ (HCW) satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and financial performance.

Methods: The authors prepared the present systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Further, the authors customized the search strategy for PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar databases, and Google’s search engine. The obtained studies were screened to isolate those measuring scores related to HCW satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and financial performance. The Risk of Bias (RoB) in the non-Randomized Intervention Studies (ROBINS-I) tool was used to assess the quality of observational and quasi-experimental studies. On the other hand, for the Rand- omized Controlled Trials (RCTs), the Cochrane (RoB 2) tool was used.

Results: Out of 4031 studies, the researchers included 20 studies that measured the impact of BSC on one or more of the three entities (HCW satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and financial performance). Throughout these 20 studies, it was found that 17 studies measured the impact of the BSC on patient satisfaction, seven studies measured the impact on HCW satisfaction, and 12 studies measured the impact on financial performance.

Conclusion: This systematic review provides managers and policymakers with evidence to support utilizing BSC in the health care sector. BSC implementation demonstrated positive outcomes for patient satisfaction and the financial performance of HCOs. However, only a mild impact was demonstrated for effects related to HCW satisfaction. How- ever, it is worth noting that many of the studies reflected a high RoB, which may have affected the impacts on the three primary outcomes measured. As such, this systematic review reflects the necessity for further focus on this area in the future. Moreover, future research is encouraged to measure the real and current impact of implementing BSC in HCO during the pandemic since we did not find any.

Keywords: Performance, Evaluation, Assessment, Health, Hospital, Impact, Effect

© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Introduction Since its development by Norton and Kaplan in 1992 [1], the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) has been utilized by many health care managers for the performance evaluation (P.E.) of Health Care Organizations (HCO) worldwide.

Open Access

*Correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected] 2 Institute for Health Insurance, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

Page 2 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

Moreover, BSC can also be used as a strategic managerial tool by linking it to the organization’s strategy [2].

The first generation of the BSC was used to evaluate four organizational perspectives: the financial perspec- tive, the customers’ perspective, the internal processes’ perspective, and finally, the learning and growth per- spective, all of which were steered by the organizational vision and strategy [1]. See Fig. 1. In this regard, it should be noted that a recent review re-categorized the BSC four perspectives for HCO into further 45 sub-dimensions or categories [3]. In the second generation of BSC, strategic maps were added to describe the cause-effect relation- ships between strategic objectives of each perspective [4]. In the third generation of BSC, destination statements, measures, and action plans were added to achieve the intended targets [5]. It is worth mentioning that Duke Children’s Hospital in the United States of America (USA) was the first HCO to implement BSC in 2000. As a result, the hospital was able to convert 11 million dollars of losses into four million dollars of profits [6]. See Fig. 2, which shows Duke University’s health system strategic map [7]. The BSC strategic maps show that the process flow of the cause-and-effect relationships ends with the customer and financial perspectives [4, 8].

More recently, the pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) imposed financial burdens on many countries and health care systems worldwide. In addi- tion, the pandemic increased the psychological stress of

patients and HCW [3, 9, 10]. Moreover, implementing tasks with particular standards and guidelines was vital in tackling the spread of COVID-19 [11]. However, conflict- ing managerial decisions and the lack of standardization capability were factors that brought dissatisfaction about HCO [12]. Consequently, it is deemed essential to evalu- ate previous BSC implementation’s effectiveness in HCO and determine if actual benefits remain to justify their continued use. It is worth noting that numerous system- atic reviews regarding the impact of BSC implementation in non-health care-related fields, such as architecture [13], management, marketing, and accounting, already exist [14]. However, BSC reviews in health care only described the application of BSC or its perspectives [3, 15]. They lacked evaluation of the effectiveness of using BSC in HCO through systematically reviewed and evalu- ated literature. In this regard, only two reviews discussed the impact of BSC; one discussed the impact qualita- tively [16], while the other mentioned a few examples of the positive impact [8]. To reiterate, this indicates that, until now, no comprehensive or rigorous methodological approach to assess the impact of BSC implementation in HCO has been recorded. Based on this gap in the litera- ture, it was deemed essential to determine whether the previous BSC implementations at HCO were beneficial.

Thus, the present systematic review aims to gather all studies which have measured the impact of implement- ing BSC on HCW satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and

Fig. 1 Balanced Scorecard Perspectives [1].

Page 3 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

financial performance at HCO; particularly, since these three attributes represent the latest affected perspectives in the strategic maps [4, 8]. Further, this review aims to assess and compare results among the included studies.

Materials and methods Our previous systematic review analyzed the dimensions and indicators of BSC utilized at the P.E. of HCO [3]. This systematic review was carried out by finding all studies that approached BSC implementation’s impact in HCO in adherence with the 27-point of the Preferred Report- ing Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [17]. See (S1 Appendix).

Eligibility criteria The inclusion and exclusion criteria were set as shown in Table 1 below.

Data sources, search strategy, and study selection In the present systematic review, the search strategy was developed by the first, second, and fourth authors; because the first two authors are experts in health care management and BSC, and the fourth author is an expert in systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The search strategy was initially developed for the PubMed database based on the PICO (Population, Intervention, Compari- son, and Outcome) tool [18], and depending on using both MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and key- words. See (Table  1). Next, the strategy was adapted to

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CEN- TRAL), Embase, and Google Scholar databases, as per Cochrane’s recommendations [19]. The strategies devel- oped for these databases can be found in (S2 Appendix).

The grey literature, pre-prints, and unpublished stud- ies were searched on Google Scholar and Google’s search engine websites to reduce publication bias. Furthermore, the authors attempted to identify other potentially eli- gible studies or ancillary publications by searching the reference lists of any potentially eligible studies. The databases were searched until October 2020. Afterward, the first author conducted the search strategies on the electronic databases and removed the duplicates using the EndNote X9.2 program.

The first and second authors independently performed the selection of eligible studies. A discussion after each step was made or, if necessary, the third author was con- sulted for arbitration in case of disagreements. Initially, the titles and abstracts of the studies were examined to eliminate irrelevant studies. In the second step, the full texts of all potentially relevant studies were carefully reviewed to make a final decision based on the criteria mentioned above. Authors of studies with no available full texts or unclear impact duration were contacted to obtain further details and clarification.

Data extraction and analysis The following types of data were extracted from each of the final eligible studies: 1) author/s, year of

Fig. 2 Duke University Health System Strategic Map [7]

Page 4 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

publication, 2) country, 3) type of study, 4) duration of data collection 5) setting, 6) the number of health facilities, 7) number of participants, 8) data collection tool or data source, and 9) outcome (impact on patient satisfaction, HCW satisfaction, and financial perfor- mance). The data extraction was carried out indepen- dently between January and March 2021 by the first and second authors.

The research design of eligible studies was extracted directly from them. In case the research design was not explicitly mentioned, it was determined based on the role of the investigator of a given study. Specifically, if the BSC exposures were naturally determined and the investigator had no part, the study was considered observational. On the other hand, when the investigator assigned the BSC intervention, the study was deemed to be experimental.

The impact of BSC in eligible studies was explicitly mentioned or determined by calculating the difference between before and after implementation values. After that, the unification of the units was performed. Next, charts plotting for each outcome were performed by the first author and then reviewed by the first and second authors separately. If the impact measurement unit was not reported in the eligible studies, the authors of these studies were contacted. Lastly, all differences were com- pared, discussed, and judged by the two authors in the final step.

Quality assessment The Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment was performed by the first and second authors independently between March and June 2021 to assess the quality of the included stud- ies. As per the Cochrane collaboration’s guidelines, the Cochrane (RoB 2) tool was used for the assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [20]. The Risk of Bias in non-Randomized Intervention Studies (ROB- INS-I) tool was used to assess the observational and quasi-experimental studies [21]. As per the Cochrane Handbook, authors should avoid summarizing the over- all RoB [22, 23]. Therefore, the RoB was analyzed at the study level and across studies.

In (RoB 2) tool, five types of bias were assessed: bias arising from the randomization processes, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to miss- ing outcome data, bias in the measurement of outcomes, and bias in the selection of the reported results.

On the other hand, in the ROBINS-I tool, seven types of bias were assessed: bias due to confounding, bias in the selection of participants in a study, bias in measurement/ classification of interventions/ exposures, bias due to deviations from intended interventions/ exposures, bias due to missing data, bias in the measurement of the out- comes, bias in the selection of the reported results.

While using the RoB 2 tool, each type of bias was assessed as low, high, or unclear. While using the ROB- INS-I tool, each type of bias was evaluated into five

Table 1 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria and Search Strategy for PubMed

Note: HCOs Health Care Organizations, BSC Balanced Scorecard, TQM Total Quality Management, MBNQA Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, ISO International Organization for Standardization, SQA Singapore Quality Award, ROI Return On Investment, ROA Return On Assets

PICO Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Search Strategy (MeSH terms and keywords) for PubMed

Population Any type of health care organization Non- health organization hospitals[MeSH Terms] hospital department[MeSH Terms] health[MeSH Terms]

Intervention Performance assessment of health care organizations through implementing BSC

Studies that used other TQM tools such as MBNQA, ISO, SQA, six-sigma, etc.

“quality indicators, health care”[MeSH Terms] scorecard*[Text Word] “score card*”[Text Word]

Comparator -Initiation of BSC implementation (at least one year of implementation) -Or: Comparing 2 measurements after BSC implementation for at least one year -Or: Gross change/ difference after at least one year of implementation

- Initiation of BSC implementation was in less than one year. -Gross change/ difference after less than one year -One-time measurement with no compa- rability.

No limitation was set in the search strategy, studies that measured BSC impact within less than one year of implementation were excluded after carefully examining the full texts.

Outcome -Impact on financial indicators: profitabil- ity/loss, change in total revenues, change in total cost, ROI, ROA either in currency or in percentage. -Or: Impact on the patient satisfaction rate -Or: Impact on the HCWs’ satisfaction rate -The impact should be objective and measured/ quantitative.

-Impact on other indicators. -Number of patient complaints -HCWs’ burnout or turnover rate. -Cost/case or revenue/case change -Qualitative or subjective impact, for exam- ple: the managers’ opinions in impact

patient satisfaction[MeSH Terms] cost-benefit analysis[MeSH Terms] health care costs[MeSH Terms] Hospital personnel management[MeSH Terms] staff development[MeSH Terms] knowledge management[MeSH Terms] efficiency, organizational[MeSH Terms]

Study design All study designs _ No limitation regarding study design, type, or time was set in the search strategy

Page 5 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

categories: low, moderate, serious, critical, or no infor- mation. Afterward, the assessment results of the two reviewers were compared. Where there was disagree- ment, the fifth and sixth authors were consulted. Figures for RoB were prepared using the ROBVIS (Risk Of Bias VISualization) tool [24]. Lastly, it was recommended not to advocate quality appraisal as a criterion for inclusion in reviews [25]. Therefore, the authors decided to include all studies in this systematic review regardless of their quality assessment.

Results Study selection Initially, the search strategy resulted in a total of 4031 studies. After removing the duplicates, a total of 2985 studies remained, which were screened based on their titles and abstracts. Then, irrelevant stud- ies were excluded; thus, 202 studies remained. A

careful examination of the included studies’ full texts was made; based on this, only 20 studies were finally included in the current systematic review. Details of the study selection process are shown in the PRISMA flow-chart (Fig. 3).

Study characteristics The main characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 2.

Location/ country Regarding the implementation location, nine studies were implemented in North America, two in Europe, one in Africa, seven in Asia, and one did not specify the loca- tion. It should be noted that 14 studies were performed in high-income countries, two in upper-middle-income countries, one in a lower-middle country, and only two in low-income countries.

Fig. 3 PRISMA Flow Diagram

Page 6 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

Ta bl

e 2

Su m

m ar

y of

th e

Fi na

l I nc

lu de

d St

ud ie

s

A ut

ho r/

s, y

ea r o

f pu

bl ic

at io

n Co

un tr

y D

es ig

n of

th e

st ud

y D

ur at

io n

of d

at a

co lle

ct io

n Se

tt in

g N

o. o

f he

al th

fa

ci lit

ie s

N o.

o f p

ar tic

ip an

ts D

at a

co lle

ct io

n to

ol /

da ta

s ou

rc es

H ar

be r,

19 98

[2 6]

Ca na

da Ex

pe rim

en ta

l un

co nt

ro lle

d pr

et es

t- po

st te

st

N R

Pe el

M em

or ia

l H os

pi ta

l (H

os pi

ta l i

n ge

ne ra

l +

La bo

ra to

ry )

1 N

R N

R

M el

io ne

s, 20

00 [5

] Th

e U

SA - N

or th

C ar

ol in

a Ex

pe rim

en ta

l un

co nt

ro lle

d In

te rr

up te

d tim

e se

rie s

19 96

–2 00

0 D

uk e

C hi

ld re

n H

os pi

ta l

1 N

R N

R

Pi nk

e t a

l., 20

01 [2

7] Ca

na da

O bs

er va

tio na

l p ro

sp ec

tiv e

lo ng

itu di

na l

19 97

–1 99

8 M

ar kh

am S

to uff

vi lle

ho

sp ita

l 1

N R

Su rv

ey s +

h os

pi ta

ls’

re po

rt s

G um

bu s

et a

l., 20

03 [2

8] U

SA Ca

se S

tu dy

/ ob

se rv

at io

na l

re tr

os pe

ct iv

e lo

ng itu

di na

l 19

99 –2

00 1

Br id

ge p

or t h

os pi

ta l

1 N

R Th

e pa

tie nt

s at

is fa

ct io

n m

ea su

re m

en t s

ys te

m

Sm ith

& K

im , 2

00 5

[2 9]

U SA

O bs

er va

tio na

l p ro

sp ec

tiv e

an d

re tr

os pe

ct iv

e lo

ng itu

- di

na l

20 01

–2 00

4 Su

m m

a’s F

oo d

& N

ut ri-

tio n

Se rv

ic e

D ep

ar t-

m en

t a t S

um m

a H

ea lth

Sy

st em

(S TH

& A

C H

ho

sp ita

ls )

2 N

R Pr

es s

G an

ey ’s

st an

da rd

in

pa tie

nt s

ur ve

y +

a ud

it ch

ec kl

is ts

D ev

itt e

t a l.,

20 05

[3 0]

Ca na

da O

bs er

va tio

na l p

ro sp

ec tiv

e an

d re

tr os

pe ct

iv e

lo ng

itu -

di na

l

20 04

–2 00

5 To

ro nt

o Ea

st G

en er

al

H os

pi ta

l 1

N R

D at

a ex

tr ac

tio n

fro m

ho

sp ita

l r ec

or ds

Ya ng

& T

un g,

2 00

6 [3

1] Ta

iw an

Re tr

os pe

ct iv

e lo

ng itu

di -

na l/

ob se

rv at

io na

l 20

00 –2

00 2

G en

er al

h os

pi ta

ls &

th ei

r su

pe rv

is or

a ge

nc y

21 N

R Se

co nd

ar y

da ta

fr om

th e

de pa

rt m

en t o

f h ea

lth +

pr

im ar

y da

ta s

tr uc

tu re

d qu

es tio

nn ai

re m

ea su

rin g

ho sp

ita ls’

o rg

an iz

at io

na l

le ar

ni ng

a nd

g ro

w th

pe

rs pe

ct iv

e

Lo rd

en e

t a l.,

20 08

[3 2]

N R

M ul

tim et

ho d

qu an

tit at

iv e

an d

qu al

ita tiv

e ca

se s

tu dy

/ ex

pe rim

en ta

l un

co nt

ro lle

d In

te rr

up te

d tim

e se

rie s

Ja n,

1 99

8- Ju

ne , 2

00 4

Co m

m un

ity h

os pi

ta l

1 30

0 In

pa tie

nt /q

ua rt

er ,

70 0

ou tp

at ie

nt /q

ua rt

er ,

22 7

em pl

oy ee

s (1

st

su rv

ey ),

19 1

em pl

oy ee

s (2

nd s

ur ve

y)

Em pl

oy ee

s at

is fa

ct io

n su

rv ey

+ p

at ie

nt s

at is

fa c-

tio n

su rv

ey (v

ia e

m ai

l)

Jo se

y &

Ki m

, 2 00

8 [3

3] U

SA -O

hi o

O bs

er va

tio na

l r et

ro sp

ec tiv

e lo

ng itu

di na

l 20

06 Ba

rb er

to n

C iti

ze ns

ho

sp ita

l ( BC

H )

1 N

R Pa

tie nt

s at

is fa

ct io

n su

rv ey

C ha

ng e

t a l.,

20 08

[3 4]

Ta iw

an O

bs er

va tio

na l r

et ro

sp ec

tiv e

lo ng

itu di

na l

20 01

–2 00

5 M

ac ka

y M

em or

ia l

H os

pi ta

l 1

N R

N R

H an

se n

et a

l., 20

08 [2

4] A

fg ha

ni st

an O

bs er

va tio

na l r

et ro

sp ec

tiv e

lo ng

itu di

na l

Ju ly

to O

ct ob

er o

f (2

00 4/

20 05

/2 00

6) H

ea lth

fa ci

lit ie

s >

6 00

17 00

H C

W s,

58 00

pa

tie nt

s- p

ro vi

de r

in te

ra ct

io n

N R

C hu

e t a

l., 20

09 [3

5] Ta

w ia

n Ca

se s

tu dy

/ ex

pe rim

en ta

l un

co nt

ro lle

d In

te rr

up te

d tim

e se

rie s

20 04

–2 00

6 Th

e nu

rs in

g de

pa rt

- m

en t a

t a p

ub lic

te ac

h- in

g ho

sp ita

l i n

Ta iw

an

1 13

re fe

re nc

e nu

rs es

’ gr

ou p

Fi na

nc ia

l d at

a fro

m h

os -

pi ta

l + q

ue st

io nn

ai re

s to

ex

ec ut

iv es

(t he

w ei

gh ts

of

in di

ca to

rs )

Page 7 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

N ot

e: N

R N

ot R

ep or

te d,

H CW

s H ea

lth C

ar e

W or

ke rs

. I ta

lic a

re d

es ig

ns b

as ed

o n

ou r c

la ss

ifi ca

tio n

bu t n

ot re

po rt

ed .

Ta bl

e 2

(c on

tin ue

d)

A ut

ho r/

s, y

ea r o

f pu

bl ic

at io

n Co

un tr

y D

es ig

n of

th e

st ud

y D

ur at

io n

of d

at a

co lle

ct io

n Se

tt in

g N

o. o

f he

al th

fa

ci lit

ie s

N o.

o f p

ar tic

ip an

ts D

at a

co lle

ct io

n to

ol /

da ta

s ou

rc es

Ed w

ar d

et a

l., 20

11 [3

6] A

fg ha

ni st

an O

bs er

va tio

na l r

et ro

sp ec

tiv e

lo ng

itu di

na l

20 04

–2 00

8 H

ea lth

fa ci

lit ie

s in

A

fg ha

ni st

an 70

0 15

00 H

C W

s, 50

00

pa tie

nt s

N at

io na

l h ea

lth s

er vi

ce s

pe rf

or m

an ce

A ss

es s-

m en

t + in

te rv

ie w

s w

ith

pa tie

nt s

an d

H C

W s

Fi el

ds &

C oh

en , 2

01 1

[3 7]

U SA

Ex pe

rim en

ta l u

nc on

tr ol

le d

In te

rr up

te d

tim e

se rie

s 20

09 –2

01 0

O re

go n

H ea

lth a

nd

sc ie

nc e

un iv

er si

ty fa

m ily

m

ed ic

in e

(C lin

ic s)

1 N

R Pr

es s

G an

ey s

ur ve

y fo

r pa

tie nt

s at

is fa

ct io

n +

m

ed ic

al re

co rd

s.

Ko um

po ur

os , 2

01 3

[3 8]

G re

ec e

Ca se

s tu

dy /

ex pe

rim en

ta l

un co

nt ro

lle d

In te

rr up

te d

tim e

se rie

s

18 m

on th

s bu

t n ot

sp

ec ifi

ed w

he n

ex ac

tly G

en er

al P

an ar

ca di

an

H os

pi ta

l o f T

rip ol

is 1

N R

Q ue

st io

nn ai

re s

an d

in te

rv ie

w s

Sm ith

e t a

l., 20

14 [3

9] Ca

na da

/ A

lb er

ta Ex

pe rim

en ta

l un

co nt

ro lle

d pr

et es

t- po

st te

st

20 10

–2 01

1 (1

2- m

on th

tr

ia l),

M ar

ch 3

1, 2

01 3

(re su

lts )

H os

pi ta

ls in

A lb

er ta

in

cl ud

in g

hi p

an d

kn ee

su

rg er

ie s

12 N

R N

R

A bd

ul la

h et

a l.,

20 14

[4

0] In

do ne

si a

C ro

ss -

se ct

io na

l/o bs

er va

tio na

l pr

os pe

ct iv

e an

d re

tr os

pe c-

tiv e

lo ng

itu di

na l

A pr

il– D

ec em

be r,

20 13

C ib

to M

an gu

nk us

um o

H os

pi ta

l- D

ig es

tiv e

en do

sc op

y ce

nt er

1 76

p at

ie nt

s En

do sc

op y

re po

rt s +

in

te rv

ie w

s ba

se d

on

st ru

ct ur

ed q

ue st

io nn

ai re

s

M ut

al e

et a

l., 20

14 [2

5,

41 ]

Za m

bi a

C lu

st er

ra nd

om iz

ed in

te r-

ve nt

io n/

e xp

er im

en ta

l R CT

20

11 –2

01 3

H ea

lth fa

ci lit

ie s

in

Za m

bi a

12 96

H C

W s,

42 9

pa tie

nt

in te

rv ie

w s,

41 0

pa tie

nt

ob se

rv at

io ns

A s

ur ve

y in

fa ci

lit ie

s+

in te

rv ie

w s

w ith

H C

W s

an d

pa tie

nt s +

p at

ie nt

ob

se rv

at io

n +

s ur

ve y

w ith

h ou

se ho

ld s

Ca tu

og no

e t a

l., 20

17

[4 2]

Ita ly

Ca se

s tu

dy /

Ex pe

rim en

ta l

un co

nt ro

lle d

pr et

es t-

po st

te st

20 07

–2 00

8, &

20

14 –2

01 5

H em

at ol

og y

de pa

rt -

m en

t a t a

R es

ea rc

h ho

sp ita

l i n

Ita ly

1 14

St ak

eh ol

de r s

at is

fa ct

io n;

qu

es tio

nn ai

re s +

c ar

e pr

oc es

se s +

h os

pi ta

l d is

- ch

ar ge

re po

rt +

c ha

rit y

re po

rt +

re se

ar ch

p ro

ce ss

+

d ep

ar tm

en ta

l r ep

or t +

ec

on om

ic a

nd fi

na n-

ci al

; h os

pi ta

l d is

ch ar

ge

da ta

ba se

+ d

ep ar

tm en

ta l

re po

rt +

c ha

rit y

re po

rt

W id

ya sa

ri &

A di

, 2 01

9 [4

3] In

do ne

si a

D es

cr ip

tiv e

Q ua

nt ita

tiv e

lo ng

itu di

na l/o

bs er

va tio

na l

pr os

pe ct

iv e

an d

re tr

os pe

c- tiv

e

D ur

in g

th e

ye ar

2 01

8 Ba

li M

an da

ra H

os pi

ta l

of B

al i (

G ov

er nm

en ta

l ho

sp ita

l)

1 30

Pa rt

ic ip

an t o

bs er

va tio

n +

s tr

uc tu

re d

in te

rv ie

w s

+ s

em i-s

tr uc

tu re

d in

te r-

vi ew

s +

d oc

um en

ta tio

n.

Page 8 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

Setting Out of the 20 selected studies, 16 were performed in hos- pitals or hospital departments, and four in health care facilities or clinics. See Table 2.

Language Even though no limitation was imposed on language, all of the selected 20 studies measuring the impact of BSC implementation were written in English.

Study designs Out of the 20 selected studies, only three studies reported their study designs explicitly. However, our classifica- tion showed that 11 studies were observational since the investigators were not involved in implementing BSC; instead, these investigators only observed the results of already implemented BSCs at HCO. On the other hand, the remaining nine studies were experimental. One out of the nine was RCT, while the other eight were quasi- experimental studies, which included three pretest-post- test components and five Interrupted Time Series. See Table 2. Notably, only three studies [32, 36, 37] randomly selected HCO, participants, or both.

Variations regarding the data collection instruments Variances among the data collection instruments used in the 20 studies are shown in Table  2. Notably, the employed instruments were validated only in six stud- ies [27, 28, 32, 35, 39, 42]. Additionally, only five studies [27, 28, 39, 42, 43] assessed the instruments’ feasibility. The pre-testing of the instruments was carried out only in three studies [27, 32, 35]. In addition, only five studies [27, 31, 38, 42, 43] assigned weights for the indicators or assessed their importance before implementation. Fur- ther, only one study [29] evaluated the indicators depend- ing on more than one source for the same variable.

BSC generations The 20 studies chosen for this systematic review utilized different BSC generations. The first generation of BSC was employed in seven studies [28–31, 33, 39, 42] which discussed explanations, the definition of perspectives and indicators, and how to measure each indicator. Besides these seven studies, one other study [34] used the first generation BSC; however, only customer and patient sat- isfaction were explained in the way they were measured. Further, only five of the 20 studies [27–30, 33] specified the source for each perspective/indicator, while one study [42] mentioned them partially.

The aspects of BSC’s second-generation were found in five of the 20 studies [26, 28, 29, 31, 34], where users

modified the objectives of each indicator during imple- mentation to suit strategy, vision, mission, and goals. Additionally, two other studies [42, 43] modified these objectives partially but failed to explain them sufficiently. Further, strategic maps were only illustrated in six studies [26, 28, 31, 33, 38, 40]. Finally, it is worth noting that only three studies [28, 29, 31] displayed the cause-effect cas- cade between indicators and targets.

Regarding the third generation’s aspects, seven of the 20 studies [26, 28–31, 33, 34] approached destination statements or targets within a time horizon. Besides, one study [6] approached the length of stay indicator only. Additionally, only one study [26] approached stra- tegic initiatives or action plans to achieve the targeted performance.

BSC’s impact type The included studies assessed different outcomes for implementing BSC. Out of the final 20 eligible stud- ies, 17 studies [6, 26–29, 31–38, 42–44] measured the impact of BSC on patient satisfaction, 7 measured HCW satisfaction [27–30, 36, 37, 45], and 12 studies measured financial performance [6, 27–30, 33, 34, 40, 41, 43–45]. However, the measured variables varied among studies, even in terms of the same dependent variable (Figs.  4, 5, 6, 7). For example, BSC’s impact on patient satisfac- tion varied from overall satisfaction to the satisfaction of specific categories, such as adults, children, inpatients, outpatients, patients in the emergency room, patients in rehabilitation. In addition, the measured variables varied based on the service type, such as satisfaction of home care services and departmental services.

Regarding HCW satisfaction, the name assigned to the targeted population varied from staff, employees to HCW. Further, the HCW satisfaction type varied, for instance, from HCW satisfaction towards their job to HCW satisfaction towards their superiors. However, the financial variable had the greatest variation among all three primary outcomes measured. Specifically, it was found that there exists a reduction in costs, expenditures, HCW budget, expenses, catering expenses, expenses/net revenues, bad debt expenses per net revenue, and supply per net revenue. On the other hand, an increase in rev- enues types included; returns, profits, aggregate surplus, funds, the value of drug-related groups, and return on assets.

Moreover, the unit used for financial impact assess- ment differed among studies. For example, all studies used currencies for assessment, where these currencies also varied between studies, except for a few studies [27, 33, 34] which used a percentage method. As an attempt to reduce bias, all currencies were converted to United

Page 9 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

States Dollar to standardize and make the comparison across studies more consistent regarding the financial outcomes in the systematic review. Further, the authors of one study [28] were contacted for clarification since they did not report the currency. As a result, Figs. 6 and 7 were designed as seen below; one for the impact in cur- rencies and the other for the impact in percentages.

Most studies used a percentage score to measure the impact on patient and HCW satisfaction, except for three studies [28, 30, 45], which performed the measurement based on a four or five point-Likert scale. However, to make the comparison consistent, all Likert scales were converted to percentages (scores out of 100%). It should be noted that only two of the 20 studies [35, 45] discussed the statistical significance of the results. Hence, the mag- nitude of change (in percentage) was taken into consid- eration in our analysis.

Time of measuring the outcomes To make an objective comparison and avoid falling into bias, we reported the time between implementing BSC and assessing its impact in the included studies. Further

analysis demonstrated that the intervals between the initiation of BSC implementations and the measure- ments of impacts varied among studies. In particular, one study [29] reported the results based on 18 months of implementation, two studies [38, 44] took 2 years, one study [45] took 3 years, two studies [6, 35] took 4 years, and one study [28] took 7 years of implementation. The remaining 13 studies reported results based on 1 year of implementation. Due to the previously mentioned vari- ations in measured variables, duration of implementing BSC, and differences in data collection instruments or data sources, refer to (Table 2), the authors decided that conducting a meta-analysis would not lead to meaning- ful results. Instead, a comparison of the impact was per- formed using the bar charts. See (Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7).

The impact of BSC implementation The outcomes of BSC implementation in each of the 20 included studies are shown above in (Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7), which illustrate the impact on patient satisfaction, HCW satisfaction, and financial performance (in percentage and currency). The exact impact type and duration were

Fig. 4 Patient Satisfaction Impact. Increase or decrease in patient satisfaction rate after BSC implementation (%)

Page 10 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

Fig. 5 HCW Satisfaction Impact. Increase or decrease in HCW satisfaction rate after BSC implementation (%)

Fig. 6 Financial Impact (%). Increase or decrease in financial performance after BSC implementation (%)

Page 11 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

specified for each measurement, and the results are dis- cussed further in the discussion section below.

Since we did not limit our search strategy to the three BSC impacts defined in our aim, eight studies of different impact types resulted in the abstract screen- ing process. Examples of the other BSC impact types include; influencing the market share, the number of new patients, the number of consultations and visits, community satisfaction, percentage of residents receiv- ing outreach activities, number of sampled children, availability of essential drugs, and decreasing the aver- age length of stay [46, 47]. However, after reading the full texts, the authors decided to exclude these studies as they lacked sufficient relevance to our research aim. See (S 3 Appendix).

Quality assessment As illustrated in S4 Appendix, each study was evalu- ated in terms of RoB. For that purpose, the RoB 2 tool was employed to assess the sole RCT study [32], in which the assessment was deemed fair, except for the perfor- mance bias. On the other hand, the RoB in the quasi- experimental and observational studies was measured using the ROBINS-I tool; and it was found that there was no information about analysis methods of confounders’ adjustments except in four studies [33, 36, 39, 42]. The confounding agents were apparent in three studies [27, 35, 37]. However, the three studies failed to adjust for the confounders, which may have affected the precision of the measurement.

Furthermore, the selection bias across studies reflected serious RoB in five studies [27, 30, 31, 33, 40]. A possi- ble reason the intervention and the follow-up did not coincide together and a potentially substantial amount of follow-up time was missing in the analyses. The mod- erate risk of bias showed that the intervention status was well defined, but some aspects of the assignments of intervention status were determined retrospectively. Further, outcome measurements bias was raised either due to the non-blinding of intervention among assessors [37] or because the outcome measure was subjective and likely to be influenced by other factors [29, 38]. See (S4 Appendix).

Discussion Discussion of the main results This systematic review aimed to identify all the studies which measured the impact of BSC implementation on three variables: HCW satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and financial performance at HCO, and then proceeded to analyze the effect of these BSC implementations.

The analysis of the results reflected a remarkably posi- tive impact of BSC on patient satisfaction in most studies. The same positive impact of BSC implementation holds for financial performance in both currency and percent- age indicators. Notably, the authors found that almost all studies showed a positive impact, amounting to several million dollars. However, a few studies reflected a mod- erately negative impact on financial performance, which form three distinct categories. The first category includes

Fig. 7 Financial Impact (USD). Increase or decrease in financial performance after BSC implementation (USD)

Page 12 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

study [29], which explained the occurrence of unintended events that may have negatively affected financial perfor- mance. The second category comprises studies [30, 40] that revealed a highly positive impact on financial per- formance in previous or subsequent years, which may reflect a sloth in following up. The third category includes studies [28, 39] that showed a positive impact on financial performance on one or more of the other impact types. On the other hand, the analysis of BSC impact for HCW satisfaction revealed a less remarkably positive impact. See (Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7).

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews The findings obtained from the present systematic review are in line with a systematic review [14] that reviewed BSC’s benefits in business, management, and accounting fields. Furthermore, the present study is the first to sum- marize all BSC implementations and their impacts on the health care sector based on quantitative comparisons. Moreover, the current study was compared with other reviews in the health care sector. For instance, a review [15] carried out a mere description regarding the applica- tion of BSC. In contrast, a review [3] only summarized the perspectives and dimensions utilized. Lastly, a review [16] only mentioned examples about BSC impact.

One probable explanation for the mild impact on HCW satisfaction can be referred to the lack of mana- gerial engagement with the non-managerial HCW upon BSC implementation, the lack of understanding by HCW about the advantages of BSC implementation s, or the fear of potential responsibility and accountability placed upon HCW due to BSC implementation. As a result, HCW may have declined to implement BSC, contribut- ing to a lower satisfaction score. In conclusion, future researchers should consider increasing employee partici- pation in BSC implementations.

For instance, in a study [29], the employees did not have incentives or motives to participate in BSC since they were permanent employees. Further, the study showed that HCW above 40 years old negatively influenced creativity and productivity upon BSC implementation. Other researchers in [48] also referred to this challenge, who noted that major deficiencies arose from qualified personnel and HCW aging. However, those researchers have also suggested that the high-ranking qualifications of HCW, driving learning and a growth perspective, will eventually generate motivation for new HCW to resolve this issue. Other proposed ideas to solve this problem were creating an open environment for learning and growth and encouraging active communication with HCW to ensure the successful implementation of BSC. Other researchers [49] encouraged senior management

commitments to involve non-managerial HCW, promot- ing clear articulation of benefits and relevancy of BSC to clinicians. This challenge mirrors the findings of another review [50], which realized that the attitude perceived by health care professionals of accreditation was negative and skeptical because of quality concerns regarding ser- vices and their cost. Therefore, the authors in the latter study suggested that health care professionals, especially physicians, require more intensive education about the potential benefits of accreditation.

Finally, the quality assessment revealed that many stud- ies had high RoB, which may have affected the impact results. A recommendation for the researchers and man- agers implementing BSC in the future is to dedicate more focus to raising the quality of implementation and lower- ing the RoB. Moreover, a better focus on the second and third generations of BSC aspects is essential.

Strengths and weaknesses The current systematic review contains several strengths. To our knowledge, this is the first paper that has ana- lyzed all the studies which measured the impact of BSC on patient satisfaction, HCW satisfaction, and financial performance in HCO. The results and analysis of this sys- temic review support a positive impact for applying BSC in HCO, especially on patient satisfaction and financial performance. Further, a greater emphasis on the role of HCW is required when implementing BSC since HCW satisfaction showed slightly positive, almost zero, or somewhat negative scores in most studies included.

Additionally, the three primary outcome measures con- centrated upon in this systematic review are considered the last destination for impact in the strategic maps and the causal effects at most BSC studies. Finally, unlike other BSC reviews [8, 16], which included definitions of biobanks, pharmacies, laboratories, radiology, and medi- cal colleges in HCO, this review limited the definition to the primary, secondary, or tertiary health care organi- zations. This strategy leads to the homogeneity of the resulting studies and leads to more valid comparisons among the results.

Nevertheless, this paper has some limitations. First, it focused on the impact of BSC on the three chosen indica- tors only, whereas impacts on other types of indicators were not considered for analysis. Due to the vast variations of indicator types, analysis of these indicators presents a chal- lenge, requiring narrowly specified modes of analysis. Sec- ondly, no meta-analysis could be applied to this systematic review resulting from the heterogeneity of studies regarding their data collection tools and the enormous variation in the types of indicators. However, the later variation was clarified in the charts, and the data collection tool was specified for each study. Thirdly, the current review included studies that

Page 13 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

measured the impact after at least 1 year of implementation. Fourthly, it is essential to mention that the impact compa- rability is roughly more rational for patient satisfaction and HCW satisfaction than financial performance. This could be referred to as the comparison ability based on a percentage score of 100 for the satisfaction variables. Additionally, the change in financial performance based on currency could be influenced by other confounding factors such as the HCO size or the number of health facilities included in the study. Therefore, future studies should consider these confound- ing factors. Moreover, future studies should reduce the RoB due to the lack of high-quality BSC implementations in the literature. Finally, this review searched for the BSC imple- mentation in health care databases; consequently, future systematic reviews are recommended to include studies in management and health policy databases.

Conclusions In conclusion, this systemic review offers evidence to HCO and policymakers on the benefits of implementing BSC in HCO. Although the quality assessment revealed that many studies had a high RoB, BSC implementation positively influenced HCO patient satisfaction and finan- cial performance. Based on the findings in the present review, researchers are encouraged to focus on lower- ing the risk of bias in BSC implementation in the future. HCO managers are also advised to consider HCW sat- isfaction and engagement with BSC implementations. Finally, an additional assessment of the BSC impact in HCO during the COVID-19 pandemic is required, as we could not find any.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12913- 021- 07452-7.

Additional file 1: S1 Appendix. PRISMA checklist. 27-point checklist of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

Additional file 2: S2 Appendix. Search strategies in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google scholar.

Additional file 3: S3 Appendix. Data set of title/abstract and full-text screenings.

Additional file 4: S4 Appendix. Risk of Bias.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Dr. Vahideh Moghaddam, Diêgo Andrade, and Wang Zhe for their help in translating and data extraction of Persian, Spanish, and Chinese studies, respectively. Also, we would like to thank Dr. Duha Shellah, Dr. Mohanad Khatatbeh, Dr. Ibrahim A. Shilbaya, Mr. Jason Titman for revising the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions This systematic review was planned and designed by F.A, S.L, S.H., I.B & D.E. Specifically, F.A & S.H performed the processes of searching for eligible studies and data extraction. F. A & S. H performed the interpretation of the data. F. A

completed the current systematic review, and all of the authors participated in revising the manuscript. S.L., I.B & D.E supervised this systematic review. Ulti- mately, all of the authors approved the final manuscript and agreed to be per- sonally accountable for the author’s contributions and ensure the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding The research was financed by the Thematic Excellence Program 2020—Insti- tutional Excellence Sub-programme / National Excellence Sub-program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology in Hungary, within the framework of the 2. thematic and Biomedical Engineering programme of the University of Pécs. Code: 2020–4.1.1-TEP2020.

Availability of data and materials All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate Not Applicable since it is a systematic review.

Consent for publication Not Applicable.

Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Author details 1 Doctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Maria u. 5-7, Pécs H-7621, Hungary. 2 Institute for Health Insurance, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 3 Cochrane Hungary, Clinical Center of the University of Pécs, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.

Received: 6 September 2021 Accepted: 16 November 2021

References 1. Kaplan R, Norton D. The balanced scorecard--measures that drive perfor-

mance. Harv Bus Rev. 1992;70:71–9. 2. Hannula M, Kulmala H, Suomala P. Total quality management and balanced

scorecard-a comparative analysis. In: Werther WJ, et al., editors. Productivity & Quality Management Frontiers - VIII. Bradford: MCB University Press; 1999.

3. Amer F, Hammoud S, Khatatbeh H, Lohner S, Boncz I. A systematic review: the dimensions and indicators utilized in the performance evaluation of health care organizations- an implication during COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint. 2021. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1101/ 2021. 06. 26. 21259 568.

4. Kaplan RS. Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. Hand- books Manag Account Res. 2009;3:1253–69.

5. Speckbacher G, Bischof J, Pfeiffer T. A descriptive analysis on the imple- mentation of balanced scorecards in German-speaking countries. Manag Account Res. 2003;14:361–88.

6. Meliones J. Saving money, saving lives. Harv Bus Rev. 2000;78:57–62,64 66–7. 7. Duke-Children’s-Hospital. Duke Children’ s Hospital Case Abstract. Bal-

anced Scorecard Collaborative Hall of Fame. :1–13. https:// thepa lladi umgro up. com/ downl oad? file= AED_ 15511 02784_ 116at tachm ent_ dubai_ boot_ camp_-_ march_ 2019_ opt. pdf% 23Dub ai_ Boot_ Camp_-_ March_ 2019_ opt. pdf. Accessed 15 May 2021.

8. Mcdonald B. A review of the use of the balanced scorecard in healthcare. BMcD Consult. 2012;2012:1–32.

9. Amer F, Hammoud S, Farran B, Boncz I, Endrei D. Assessment of Countries’ preparedness and lockdown effectiveness in fighting COVID-19. Dis Med Public Health Prep. 2021;15:e15–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ dmp. 2020. 217.

10. Lou NM, Montreuil T, Feldman LS, Fried GM, Lavoie-Tremblay M, Bhanji F, et al. Evaluations of Healthcare Providers’ Perceived Support From Personal, Hospital, and System Resources: Implications for Well-Being and Management in Healthcare in Montreal, Quebec, During COVID-19. Eval Health Prof. 2021;44:319–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01632 78721 10127 42.

Page 14 of 14Amer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2022) 22:65

11. Ali A, Owied MM, Virginia P, Ruth E, Abdulellah AT. Using Logic Model and Key Performance Indicators to Construct A Field Hospital for Coronavirus Pandemic Cases. BMC Emerg Med. 2020:12–4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21203/ rs.3. rs- 102321/ v1.

12. Alrawashdeh HM, Al-Tammemi AB, Alzawahreh MK, Al-Tamimi A, Elkholy M, Al Sarireh F, et al. Occupational burnout and job satisfaction among physicians in times of COVID-19 crisis: a convergent parallel mixed- method study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:811.

13. Hansen EG, Schaltegger S. The sustainability balanced scorecard: a systematic review of architectures. J Bus Ethics. 2016;133:193–221.

14. Ratnaningrum AYA, Setiawan D. Balanced Scorecard: Is It Beneficial Enough? A Literature Review. Asian J Account Perspect. 2020;13:65–84.

15. Bohm V, Lacaille D, Spencer N, Barber CE. Scoping review of balanced scorecards for use in healthcare settings: development and imple- mentation. BMJ open Qual. 2021;10:1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjoq- 2020- 001293.

16. Rabbani F, Jafri SMW, Abbas F, Pappas G, Brommels M, Tomson G. Review- ing the application of the balanced scorecard with implications for low- income health settings. J Healthc Qual. 2007;29:21–34.

17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and Meta- analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.

18. Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:579.

19. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf M-I, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: JPT H, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv version 62 (updated Febr 2021); 2021. www. train ing. cochr ane. org/ handb ook.

20. Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assess- ing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from www. train ing. cochr ane. org/ handb ook.

21. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. i4919.

22. Higgins JP, Altman DG. Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. p. 187–241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 97804 70712 184. ch8.

23. Babic A, Vuka I, Saric F, Proloscic I, Slapnicar E, Cavar J, et al. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;119:57–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclin epi. 2019. 11. 008.

24. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R pack- age and shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12:55–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jrsm. 1411.

25. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52:546–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1365- 2648. 2005. 03621.x.

26. Devitt R, Klassen W, Martalog J. Strategic management system in a healthcare setting--moving from strategy to results. Healthc Q. 2005;8:58–65.

27. Chu H, Wang C. A study of a nursing department using the balanced scorecard and the performance measurement system: analytic hierarchy process. Nurs Econ. 2009;27:401–8.

28. Catuogno S, Arena C, Saggese S, Sarto F. Balanced performance measure- ment in research hospitals: the participative case study of a haematology department. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:1–11.

29. Koumpouros Y. Balanced scorecard: application in the general Panarcadian Hospital of Tripolis, Greece. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2013;26:286–307.

30. Smith H, Kim I. Balanced scorecard at summa health system. J Corp Acc Financ. 2005;16:65–72.

31. Widyasari NLG, Adi NR. Balanced scorecard implementation in the gov- ernment hospital. Russ J Agric Socio-Economic Sci. 2019;93:285–91.

32. Mutale W, Stringer J, Chintu N, Chilengi R, Mwanamwenge MT, Kasese N, et al. Application of balanced scorecard in the evaluation of a complex

health system intervention: 12 months post intervention findings from the BHOMA Intervention : a cluster randomised trial in Zambia. PLoS One. 2014;9:1–10.

33. Yang M-C, Tung Y-C. Using path analysis to examine causal relationships among balanced scorecard performance indicators for general hospitals. Health Care Manag Rev. 2006;31:280–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ 00004 010- 20061 0000- 00003.

34. Josey C, Kim I. Implementation of the balanced scorecard at Barberton citizens hospital. J Corp Account Financ. 2008;19:57–63.

35. Lorden A, Coustasse A, Singh KP. The balanced scorecard framework-a case study of patient and employee satisfaction. Health Care Manag Rev. 2008;33:145–55.

36. Hansen PM, Peters DH, Niayesh H, Singh LP, Dwivedi V, Burnham G. Measuring and managing progress in the establishment of basic health services: the Afghanistan health sector balanced scorecard. Int J Health Plann Manag. 2008;23:107–17.

37. Edward A, Kumar B, Kakar F, Salehi AS, Burnham G, Peters DH. Configuring Balanced Scorecards for Measuring Health System Performance: Evidence from 5 Years’ Evaluation in Afghanistan. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001066

38. Smith C, Christiansen T, Dick D, Howden JS, Wasylak T, Werle J. Perfor- mance management tools motivate change at the frontlines. Healthc Manag Forum. 2014;27:15–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. hcmf. 2013. 12. 003.

39. Pink GH, McKillop I, Schraa EG, Preyra C, Montgomery C, Baker GR. Creat- ing a balanced scorecard for a hospital system. J Health Care Finance. 2001;27:1–20.

40. Chang W, Tung Y, Huang C. Performance improvement after implement- ing the balanced scorecard: a large hospital’ s experience in Taiwan. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 2008;19:1143–54.

41. Baker GR, Pink GH. A balanced scorecard for Canadian hospitals. Healthc Manag Forum. 1995;8:7–13.

42. Fields SA, Cohen D. Performance enhancement using a balanced score- card in a patient-centered medical home. Fam Med. 2011;43:735–9.

43. Gumbus A, Bellhouse DE, Lyons B. A three year journey to organizational and financial health using the balanced scorecard: a case study at a Yale New Haven health system hospital. J Bus Econ Stud. 2003;9:54–64.

44. Harber B. The balanced scorecard-solution at Peel memorial hospital. Healthc Q. 1998;1:59–63.

45. Abdullah M, Makmun D, Fauzi A, Santi A, Endoskopi P, Cerna S, et al. The use of balanced scorecard to support achievement of business plan in digestive endoscopy center, 2013. Indones J Gastroenterol Hepatol Dig Endosc. 2014;15:93–7.

46. Jones MLH, Filip SJ. Implementation and outcomes of a balanced score- card model in Womenʼs Services in an Academic Health Care Institution. Qual Manag Health Care. 2000;8:40–51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ 00019 514- 20000 8040- 00005.

47. Chan GJ, Parco KB, Sihombing ME, Tredwell P, Rourke EJO. Improving health services to displaced persons in Aceh , Indonesia : a balanced scorecard. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:709–12.

48. Behrouzi F, Shaharoun AM, Ma’Aram A. Applications of the balanced scorecard for strategic management and performance measurement in the health sector. Aust Health Rev. 2014;38:208–17.

49. Dyball MC, Cummings L, Yu H. Adoption of the cocept of balanced scorecard within NSW health: an exploration of staff attitudes. Financ Account Manag. 2011;27:335–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1468- 0408. 2011. 00528.x.

50. Alkhenizan A, Shaw C. The attitude of health care professionals towards accreditation: a systematic review of the literature. J Fam Community Med. 2012;19:74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4103/ 2230- 8229. 98281.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub- lished maps and institutional affiliations.

BioMed Central publishes under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL). Under the CCAL, authors retain copyright to the article but users are allowed to download, reprint, distribute and /or copy articles in BioMed Central journals, as long as the original work is properly cited.