Search results

This paper studies how performance funding of education is perceived by principals, teachers and administrative staff and management. The dysfunctionality of performance measures often reflects how the measures prevent an organisation from achieving its goals. This paper proposes that perceptions of dysfunctionality can be analysed by separating the perceptions of the programme's intentions, of the school-level actions and of the outcomes for students.

Following a qualitative methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers, school management, staff specialists and top management in a large Danish municipality when outcome-based funding was introduced.

The performance-funding programme affected teaching by changing educational priorities. Different perceptions of the (dys)functionality of intentions, actions and outcomes fuelled diverging responses. Although the performance measure was generally considered incomplete, interviewees' perceptions of the financial incentivisation and the dysfunctionality of actions depended on interpretations of the incentivisation and student-related outcomes of the programme.

Dysfunctionality can be contested; the interpretations of the intention of a performance-funding programme affect the perceived dysfunctionality of reactions. Both technical characteristics of funding schemes and administrators' and principals' mediating roles are essential for the consequences of performance funding.

The paper examines conditions for dysfunctionality of performance measures. We demonstrate that actions can be perceived as dysfunctional because of a measurement's intentions, actions themselves and the actions' outcomes. Further, the paper illustrates how the reception of performance funding depends on how consequences are enacted based on educators' interpretations of the (dys)functionality of intentions, actions and outcomes.

To examine the availability and quality of clinical guidelines on perioperative diabetes care in hospital units before and after a randomised clinical trial (RCT) and international accreditation.

Interventional “before‐after” study in 51 units (38 surgical and 13 anaesthetic) in nine hospitals participating in a RCT in the greater Copenhagen area; 27 of the units also underwent international accreditation.

The proportion of units with guidelines increased from 24/51 (47 percent) units before to 38/51 (75 percent) units after the trial. Among the 27 units without guidelines before the trial, significantly more accredited units compared to non‐accredited units had a guideline after the trial (9/10 (90 percent) compared to 5/17 (29 percent). The quality of the systematic development scale and the clinical scales improved significantly after the trial in both accredited units (both p<0.001) and in non‐accredited units (both p<0.02). The improvement of the systematic development scale was significantly higher in accredited than in non‐accredited units (p<0.01).

The combination of conducting both the DIPOM Trial and international accreditation led to a significant improvement of both dissemination and quality of guidelines on perioperative diabetic care.