Evidence mapPaperPMID 41929623Full record

ReviewFrontiers in health services2026

Technological advancements and the use of key performance indicators in hospital management: a critical-conceptual review.

Aydin Teymourifar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Aydin TeymourifarDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, Istanbul, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite extensive critiques of key performance indicator (KPI)-based performance measurement and rapid advances in digital health technologies, limited research has examined how such technological and data capabilities intersect with the fundamental limitations of hospital KPIs. This study addresses this gap through a critical-conceptual review that synthesizes the literature on hospital performance measurement and healthcare technology. Focusing on the main critiques of KPIs across six major categories of hospital performance, financial performance, timeliness of care and access, patient experience, quality of care and patient safety, workforce-related performance, and resource utilization and operational efficiency, the review analyzes how technological advancements influence the use of commonly applied hospital and emergency department KPIs. The paper discusses that technological and data-related advancements consistently mitigate technical constraints on KPI use by improving data completeness, timeliness, and system integration. However, these improvements do not resolve the core limitations of KPI-based performance frameworks. Across the main critiques of KPIs, enhanced technologies are shown not to resolve all limitations and may even intensify problems related to metric dominance, inequitable benchmarking, and performance paradoxes. Overall, the review demonstrates that technology, as a standalone intervention, does not improve hospital performance. By conceptually linking established KPI critiques with technological advancements across performance domains, this study closes an important gap in the literature. The review furthermore provides a structured foundation for future research and managerial decision-making on value-driven hospital performance measurement.

Indexed as

digital health technologieshospital managementkey performance indicators (KPIs)KPI limitationsperformance measurement

Identifiers

PMID41929623
PMCPMC13039003

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.