Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To identify valid and feasible quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis (OA).Design
Systematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sources
Electronic reference databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO), quality indicator repositories, subject experts.Eligibility criteria
Eligible articles referred to adults with OA, focused on development or implementation of quality indicators, and relevant to UK primary care. An English language restriction was used. The date range for the search was January 2000 to August 2013. The majority of OA management guidance has been published within this time frame.Data extraction
Relevant studies were quality assessed using previous quality indicator methodology. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Articles were assessed through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter; indicators were mapped to management guidance for OA in adults. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes.Results
10,853 articles were identified from the search; 32 were included in the review. Fifteen indicators were considered valid and feasible for implementation in primary care; these related to assessment non-pharmacological and pharmacological management. Another 10 indicators were considered less feasible, in various aspects of assessment and management. A small number of recommendations had no published corresponding quality indicator, such as use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No negative ('do not do') indicators were identified.Conclusions and implications of key findings
There are well-developed, feasible indicators of quality of care for OA which could be implemented in primary care. Their use would assist the audit and quality improvement for this common and frequently disabling condition.
SUBMITTER: Edwards JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4345981 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDespite the high prevalence of osteoarthritis and the prominence of primary care in managing this condition, there is no systematic summary of quality indicators applicable for osteoarthritis care in primary care settings.ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to identify evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings.MethodsOvid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (i) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (ii) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Applicable quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.ResultsThe search revealed 4526 studies, of which 32 studies were reviewed in detail and 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and use of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 20 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlapped conceptually or in content.ConclusionsThe process of developing quality indicators was methodologically suboptimal in most cases. There is a need to develop specific process, structure and outcome measures for adults with osteoarthritis using appropriate methodology.
| S-EPMC5892173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings.MethodsOvid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.ResultsThe search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients.ConclusionsThe identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.
| S-EPMC5496323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDevelopment of valid and feasible quality indicators (QIs) is needed to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings.MethodsLiterature search identified published guidelines that were reviewed for QI extraction. A panel of 14 experts was assembled, including primary care physicians, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists, and outcomes research pharmacists. A screening survey excluded QIs that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. A validity screening survey used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each QI based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised QI wording, added new QIs, and voted to include or exclude each QI. A priority survey used a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included QIs.ResultsLiterature search identified 520 references published from January 2015 to March 2021 and 4 additional guidelines from professional/governmental websites. The study included 41 guidelines. Extraction of 741 recommendations yielded 115 candidate QIs. Feasibility screening excluded 28 QIs. Validity screening and expert panel discussion excluded 73 QIs and added 1 QI. The final set of 15 prioritized QIs focused on pain management safety, education, weight-management, psychological wellbeing, optimizing first-line medications, referral, and imaging.ConclusionThis multi-disciplinary expert panel established consensus on QIs for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings by combining scientific evidence with expert opinion. The resulting list of 15 prioritized, valid, and feasible QIs can be used to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management.
| S-EPMC10311862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nowadays, evaluating the quality of health services, especially in primary health care (PHC), is increasingly important. In a historical perspective, the Department of Health (United Kingdom) developed and proposed a range of indicators in 1998, and lately several health, social and political organizations have defined and implemented different sets of PHC quality indicators. Some systematic reviews in PHC quality indicators are reported but only in specific contexts and conditions. The aim of this study is to characterize and provide a list of indicators discussed in the literature to support managers and clinicians in decision-making processes, through an umbrella review on PHC quality indicators. The methodology was performed according to PRISMA Statement. Indicators from 33 eligible systematic reviews were categorized according to the dimensions of care, function, type of care, domains and condition contexts. Of a total of 727 indicators or groups of indicators, 74.5% (n = 542) were classified in process category and 89.5% (n = 537) with chronic type of care (n = 428; 58.8%) and effective domain (n = 423; 58.1%) with the most frequent values in categorizations by dimensions. The results of this overview of reviews are valuable and imply the need for future research and practice regarding primary health care quality indicators in the most varied conditions and contexts to generate new discussions about their use, comparison and implementation.
| S-EPMC6697344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes.MethodsFollowing protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement.ResultsThere were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document.ConclusionMore than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.
| S-EPMC8322135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify existing quality indicators (QIs) for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of patients with infectious diseases in primary care.DesignA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE. We included studies with a description of the development of QIs for diagnosis and antibiotic use in patients with infectious diseases in primary care. We extracted information about (1) type of infection; (2) target for quality assessment; (3) methodology used for developing the QIs; and (4) whether the QIs were developed for a national or international application. The QIs were organised into three categories: (1) QIs focusing on the diagnostic process; (2) QIs focusing on the decision to prescribe antibiotics; and (3) QIs concerning the choice of antibiotics.ResultsEleven studies were included in this review and a total of 130 QIs were identified. The majority (72%) of the QIs were focusing on choice of antibiotics, 22% concerned the decision to prescribe antibiotics, and few (6%) concerned the diagnostic process. Most QIs were either related to respiratory tract infections or not related to any type of infection. A consensus method (mainly the Delphi technique), based on either a literature study or national guidelines, was used for the development of QIs in all of the studies.ConclusionsThe small number of existing QIs predominantly focuses on the choice of antibiotics and is often drug-specific. There is a remarkable lack of diagnostic QIs. Future development of new QIs, especially disease-specific QIs concerning the diagnostic process, is needed. KEY POINTS In order to improve the use of antibiotics in primary care, measurable instruments, such as quality indicators, are needed to assess the quality of care being provided. A total of 11 studies were found, including 130 quality indicators for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care. The majority of the identified quality indicators were focusing on the choice of antibiotics and only a few concerned the diagnostic process. All quality indicators were developed by means of a consensus method and were often based on literature studies or guidelines.
| S-EPMC5036015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care systems that succeed in preventing long term care and hospital admissions of frail older people may substantially save on their public spending. The key might be found in high-quality care in the community. Quality Indicators (QIs) of a sufficient methodological level are a prerequisite to monitor, compare, and improve care quality. This systematic review identified existing QIs for community care for older people and assessed their methodological quality.MethodsRelevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and selected by two reviewers independently. Eligible publications described the development or application of QIs to assess the quality of community care for older people. Information about the QIs, the study sample, and specific setting was extracted. The methodological quality of the QI sets was assessed with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A score of 50% or higher on a domain was considered to indicate high methodological quality.ResultsSearches resulted in 25 included articles, describing 17 QI sets with 567 QIs. Most indicators referred to care processes (80%) and measured clinical issues (63%), mainly about follow-up, monitoring, examinations and treatment. About two-third of the QIs focussed on specific disease groups. The methodological quality of the indicator sets varied considerably. The highest overall level was achieved on the domain 'Additional evidence, formulation and usage' (51%), followed by 'Scientific evidence' (39%) and 'Stakeholder involvement' (28%).ConclusionA substantial number of QIs is available to assess the quality of community care for older people. However, generic QIs, measuring care outcomes and non-clinical aspects are relatively scarce and most QI sets do not meet standards of high methodological quality. This study can support policy makers and clinicians to navigate through a large number of QIs and select QIs for their purposes. PROSPERO Registration: 2014:CRD42014007199.
| S-EPMC5760020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch and different organizations have proposed indicators to monitor the quality of maternal and child healthcare, such indicators are used for different purposes.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of indicators for the central phases of the maternal and child healthcare continuum of care (pregnancy, childbirth, newborn care and postpartum).MethodA search conducted using international repositories, national and international indicator sets, scientific articles published between 2012 and 2016, and grey literature. The eligibility criteria was documents in Spanish or English with indicators to monitor aspects of the continuum of care phases of interest. The identified indicators were characterized as follows: formula, justification, evidence level, pilot study, indicator type, phase of the continuum, intended organizational level of application, level of care, and income level of the countries. Selection was based on the characteristics associated with scientific soundness (formula, evidence level, and reliability).ResultsWe identified 1791 indicators. Three hundred forty-six were duplicated, which resulted in 1445 indicators for analysis. Only 6.7% indicators exhibited all requirements for scientific soundness. The distribution by the classifying variables is clearly uneven, with a predominance of indicators for childbirth, hospital care and facility level.ConclusionsThere is a broad choice of indicators for maternal and child healthcare. However, most indicators lack demonstrated scientific soundness and refer to particular continuum phases and levels within the healthcare system. Additional efforts are needed to identify good indicators for a comprehensive maternal and child healthcare monitoring system.
| S-EPMC6330388 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5611660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.
| S-EPMC1743692 | biostudies-literature