Vi använder kakor för att förbättra webbplatsen

Den här webbplatsen använder kakor (cookies) för att underlätta ditt besök och för att göra webbplatsen bättre. Läs mer om kakor.


Quality and Efficiency in Swedish Health Care – Regional comparisons 2009 - figures only

The report Quality and Efficiency in Swedish Health care – Regional Comparisons has been published annually since 2006. This is a shorter, figures-only English version of the fourth report, published in November 2009.

This publication is available in electronic format (PDF) only and can not be ordered.


Sweden – a decentralized health care system

In Sweden 21 county councils and regions are responsible for supplying their citizens with health care services. This includes hospital care, primary care, psychiatric care and dental care.

Long term care for the elderly is financed and organized by the municipalities. Each countycouncil and region is governed by a political assembly, with its representatives elected for a four year period at every general election.

The county councils and regions are of different size. Stockholm, Västra Götaland and Skåne are considerably larger than the rest, with a population between one and two million each. Gotland is smallest, with about 60 000 inhabitants. Most of the other county councils have populations in the range of 200–300 000 inhabitants.

Within the framework of national legislation and varying health care policy initiatives from the national government, the county councils and regions have substantial decision-making
powers and obligations towards their citizens. The Swedish health care system is, in short, a decentralized system. This makes it natural to put focus on the comparative performance of the county councils and regions. 124 indicators for comparisons of county councils

The report Quality and Efficiency in Swedish Healthcare – Regional Comparisons have been published since 2006, in yearly reports. This is a shorter, figures-only English version of the fourth report published in November 2009. A full, English version of the 2008 report is available for downloading.

Here, outcomes are presented for most of the 124 performance indicators which are used to compare the county councils and regions. Figures and indicators for hospitals are excluded. Each indicator is described in the final section of the report. The performance indicators are grouped and presented in the areas shown below.

The county councils and regions are ranked, from better outcomes to less good ones, corresponding to the top and the bottom of the figures, respectively. The reader should observe that a good/bad relative outcome, in comparison to other county councils, not without qualifications is a good/bad absolute outcome. All county councils could have top results, for example in an international comparison – or vice versa. Variation of outcomes should be interpreted in the light of this observation.

For most indicators 95% – confidence intervals is used to illustrate statistical uncertainty. There are other sources of uncertainty, some of which are commented in the description of an indicator. The set of indicators is chosen to mirror the health care system as a whole as good as possible, given the obvious and grave restriction of varying data availability and quality. Still, the main evaluative effort is the comparison per each indicator. For a number of reasons we have had no ambition to summarize all indicators and results into an overall ranking of quality and efficiency.

Read the full Summary

Year: 2010
Article number: 2010-4-37
Format: PDF
Pages: 147
Language: Engelska
Price (VAT included): 0 kr


+46 (0)75-247 30 00