Dataset Information

A qualitative analysis of a consensus process to develop quality indicators of injury care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Consensus methodologies are often used to create evidence-based measures of healthcare quality because they incorporate both available evidence and expert opinion to fill gaps in the knowledge base. However, there are limited studies of the key domains that are considered during panel discussion when developing quality indicators.

Methods

We performed a qualitative content analysis of the discussions from a two-day international workshop of injury control and quality-of-care experts (19 panel members) convened to create a standardized set of quality indicators for injury care. The workshop utilized a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method. Workshop proceedings were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used constant comparative analysis to analyze the transcripts of the workshop to identify key themes.

Results

We identified four themes in the selection, development, and implementation of standardized quality indicators: specifying a clear purpose and goal(s) for the indicators to ensure relevant data elements were included, and that indicators could be used for system-wide benchmarking and improving patient outcomes; incorporating evidence, expertise, and patient perspectives to identify important clinical problems and potential measurement challenges; considering context and variations between centers in the health system that could influence either the relevance or application of an indicator; and contemplating data collection and management issues, including availability of existing data sources, quality of data, timeliness of data abstraction, and the potential role for primary data collection.

Conclusion

Our study provides a description of the key themes of discussion among a panel of clinical, managerial, and data experts developing quality indicators. Consideration of these themes could help shape deliberation of future panels convened to develop quality indicators.

SUBMITTER: Bobrovitz N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3639212 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative analysis of a consensus process to develop quality indicators of injury care.

Bobrovitz Niklas N Parrilla Julia S JS Santana Maria M Straus Sharon E SE Stelfox Henry T HT

Implementation science : IS 20130418

<h4>Background</h4>Consensus methodologies are often used to create evidence-based measures of healthcare quality because they incorporate both available evidence and expert opinion to fill gaps in the knowledge base. However, there are limited studies of the key domains that are considered during panel discussion when developing quality indicators.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a qualitative content analysis of the discussions from a two-day international workshop of injury control and quality-of ...[more]

PMID: 23594974

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are currently no global recommendations on a parsimonious and robust set of indicators that can be measured routinely or periodically to monitor quality of hospital care for children and young adolescents. We describe a systematic methodology used to prioritize and define a core set of such indicators and their metadata for progress tracking, accountability, learning and improvement, at facility, (sub) national, national, and global levels.MethodsWe used a deductive methodology which involved the use of the World Health Organization Standards for improving the quality-of-care for children and young adolescents in health facilities as the organizing framework for indicator development. The entire process involved 9 complementary steps which included: a rapid literature review of available evidence, the application of a peer-reviewed systematic algorithm for indicator systematization and prioritization, and multiple iterative expert consultations to establish consensus on the proposed indicators and their metadata.ResultsWe derived a robust set of 25 core indicators and their metadata, representing all 8 World Health Organization quality standards, 40 quality statements and 520 quality measures. Most of these indicators are process-related (64%) and 20% are outcome/impact indicators. A large proportion (84%) of indicators were proposed for measurement at both outpatient and inpatient levels. By virtue of being a parsimonious set and given the stringent criteria for prioritizing indicators with "quality measurement" attributes, the recommended set is not evenly distributed across the 8 quality standards.ConclusionsTo support ongoing global and national initiatives around paediatric quality-of-care programming at country level, the recommended indicators can be adopted using a tiered approach that considers indicator measurability in the short-, medium-, and long-terms, within the context of the country's health information system readiness and maturity. However, there is a need for further research to assess the feasibility of implementing these indicators across contexts, and the need for their validation for global common reporting.

Dataset Information

A qualitative analysis of a consensus process to develop quality indicators of injury care.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A qualitative analysis of a consensus process to develop quality indicators of injury care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets