Development of indicators for patient care and monitoring standards for secondary health care services of Mumbai.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The Qualitative aspect of health care delivery is one of the major factors in reducing morbidity and mortality in a health care setup. The expanding suburban secondary health care delivery facilities of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai are an important part of the healthcare backbone of Mumbai and therefore the quality of care delivered here needed standardization.Material and methods
The project was completed over a period of one year from Jan to Dec, 2013 and implemented in three phases. The framework with components and sub-components were developed and formats for data collection were standardized. The benchmarks were based on past performance in the same hospital and probability was used for development of normal range. An Excel spreadsheet was developed to facilitate data analysis.Results
The indicators comprise of 3 components--Statutory Requirements, Patient care & Cure and Administrative efficiency. The measurements made, pointed to the broad areas needing attention.Conclusion
The Indicators for patient care and monitoring standards can be used as a self assessment tool for health care setups for standardization and improvement of delivery of health care services.
SUBMITTER: Malik SS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4364454 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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
Project description:PURPOSE: Assessment of current practice with a valid set of indicators is the key to successfully improving the quality of patient-centred care. For improvement purposes, we developed indicators of patient-centred cancer care and tested them on a population of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Recommendations for patient-centred care were extracted from clinical guidelines, and patients were interviewed to develop indicators for assessing the patient-centredness of cancer care. These indicators were tested with regard to psychometric characteristics (room for improvement, applicability, discriminating capacity and reliability) on 132 patients with NSCLC treated in six hospitals in the east Netherlands. Data were collected from patients by means of questionnaires. RESULTS: Eight domains of patient-centred cancer care were extracted from 61 oncology guidelines and 37 patient interviews and were translated into 56 indicators. The practice test amongst patients with NSCLC showed the most room for improvement within the domains 'emotional and psychosocial support', 'physical support' and 'information supply'. Overall, 26 of the 56 indicators had good psychometric characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Developing a valid set of patient-centred indicators is a first step towards improving the patient centredness of cancer care. Indicators can be based on recommendations from guidelines, but adding patient opinions leads to a more complete picture of patient centredness. The practice test on patients with NSCLC showed that the patient centredness of cancer care can be improved. Our set of indicators may also be useful for future quality assessments for other patients with cancers or chronic diseases.
| S-EPMC2778774 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC9270792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOptimal treatment gives complete relief of symptoms of many disorders. But even if such treatment is available, some patients have persisting complaints. One disorder, from which the patients should achieve complete relief of symptoms with medical or surgical treatment, is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Despite the fact that such treatment is cheap, safe and easily available; some patients have persistent complaints after contact with the health services. This study evaluates the causes of treatment failure.MethodsTwelve patients with GERD and persistent complaints had a semi-structured interview which focused on the patients' evaluation of treatment failure. The interviews were taped, transcribed and evaluated by 18 physicians, (six general practitioners, six gastroenterologists and six gastrointestinal surgeons) who completed a questionnaire for each patient. The questionnaires were scored, and the relative responsibility for the failure was attributed to the patient, primary care, secondary care and interaction in the health services.ResultsFailing interaction in the health services was the most important cause of treatment failure, followed by failure in primary care, secondary care and the patient himself; the relative responsibilities were 35%, 28%, 27% and 10% respectively. There was satisfactory agreement about the causes between doctors with different specialities, but significant inter-individual differences between the doctors. The causes of the failures differed between the patients.ConclusionsTreatment failure is a complex problem. Inadequate interaction in the health services seems to be important. Improved communication between parts of the health services and with the patients are areas of improvement.
| S-EPMC3126699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe World Health Organization (WHO) undertook an extensive and elaborate process to develop eight Global Standards to improve quality of health care services for adolescents. The objectives of this article are to present the Global Standards and their method of development.MethodsThe Global Standards were developed through a four-stage process: (1) conducting needs assessment; (2) developing the Global Standards and their criteria; (3) expert consultations; and (4) assessing their usability. Needs assessment involved conducting a meta-review of systematic reviews and two online global surveys in 2013, one with primary health care providers and another with adolescents. The Global Standards were developed based on the needs assessment in conjunction with analysis of 26 national standards from 25 countries. The final document was reviewed by experts from the World Health Organization regional and country offices, governments, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and development partners. The standards were subsequently tested in Benin and in a regional expert consultation of Latin America and Caribbean countries for their usability.ResultsThe process resulted in the development of eight Global Standards and 79 criteria for measuring them: (1) adolescents' health literacy; (2) community support; (3) appropriate package of services; (4) providers' competencies; (5) facility characteristics; (6) equity and nondiscrimination; (7) data and quality improvement; and (8) adolescents' participation.ConclusionsThe eight standards are intended to act as benchmarks against which quality of health care provided to adolescents could be compared. Health care services can use the standards as part of their internal quality assurance mechanisms or as part of an external accreditation process.
| S-EPMC4540599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to develop a core set of indicators that could be used for measuring and monitoring the performance of primary health care organizations' capacity and strategies for enhancing equity-oriented care.Indicators were constructed based on a review of the literature and a thematic analysis of interview data with patients and staff (n = 114) using procedures for qualitatively derived data. We used a modified Delphi process where the indicators were circulated to staff at the Health Centers who served as participants (n = 63) over two rounds. Indicators were considered part of a priority set of health equity indicators if they received an overall importance rating of>8.0, on a scale of 1-9, where a higher score meant more importance.Seventeen indicators make up the priority set. Items were eliminated because they were rated as low importance (<8.0) in both rounds and were either redundant or more than one participant commented that taking action on the indicator was highly unlikely. In order to achieve health care equity, performance at the organizational level is as important as assessing the performance of staff. Two of the highest rated "treatment" or processes of care indicators reflects the need for culturally safe and trauma and violence-informed care. There are four indicators that can be used to measure outcomes which can be directly attributable to equity responsive primary health care.These indicators and subsequent development of items can be used to measure equity in the domains of treatment and outcomes. These areas represent targets for higher performance in relation to equity for organizations (e.g., funding allocations to ongoing training in equity-oriented care provision) and providers (e.g., reflexive practice, skill in working with the health effects of trauma).
| S-EPMC4257722 | biostudies-other
Project description:Soil metagenome from healthy and unhealthy agricultural soil
| PRJEB22376 | ENA
Project description:ObjectiveThe eumusc.net project is an initiative founded by the European Community and the European League Against Rheumatism. One aim of the project was to facilitate equal standards for musculoskeletal health across Europe. The aim of this work-package was to develop patient-centred and consensus based standards of care (SOC) for osteoarthritis (OA), which should be available in a professional and a patient version.MethodsA systematic review concerning guidelines dealing with OA was conducted. Furthermore, experts in musculoskeletal diseases were contacted to ensure that 'grey' literature was not excluded. Documents that fulfilled predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria were included and all interventions for OA were extracted and categorised. Based on this list of interventions, a three round Delphi exercise with an international and multidisciplinary expert panel, including patient research partners, was performed to achieve expert consensus.ResultsSix documents were included and used for further analysis. Out of them, 46 interventions have been extracted and 10 consensus based SOC were formulated. In addition, a patient version, written in a lay-understandable wording and in the format of checklist questions was developed. An example is SOC 5: "People with OA should achieve optimal pain control using pharmacological and non-pharmacological means." The matching patient-centred checklist question reads: "Do I know how to control pain associated with OA?"ConclusionsThe SOC for OA will be available in the 23 languages of the European Union to enhance unified information to patients and professionals and to further harmonise the treatment/care of OA within Europe.
| S-EPMC4431331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) is a multi-sectoral approach working to equalize opportunities and include people with disability in all aspects of community life. Reliable and internationally comparable data needed to monitor and evaluate CBR are scarce, partially due to the absence of standardized indicators. The objective of this manuscript is to describe the collaborative development process which led to the World Health Organization's (WHO) recently launched set of standardized CBR outcome indicators.The WHO's CBR Guidelines recognize CBR as a comprehensive and multi-sectoral strategy, and were therefore used as the starting point for the development of the indicators, in a consensus process involving WHO and International Disability and Development Consortium. Pilot implementations in Guatemala, Egypt and China using a specifically developed mobile phone application to collect data, and an online expert survey were completed to assess validity and feasibility of the indicators and their corresponding questions.The indicator set includes 13 Base Indicators which are broad enough to capture the situation of people with disability in settings where CBR is carried out, independently of the specific CBR activities carried out in a community; and 27 Supplementary Indicators that provide more specific coverage and can be selected based on the specific goals of a CBR program.The indicators were suitable to assess differences in health, education, social life, livelihood and empowerment between people with disability and other community members. This comparability provides valuable information to CBR managers, donors and government agencies, to guide decision making, support advocacy and improve accountability. The CBR indicators will support WHO and its member states in their efforts towards strengthening CBR, by generating evidence on its effectiveness.
| S-EPMC5456090 | biostudies-other
Project description:This cross-sectional study evaluated the relationship between primary and secondary oral health care in Brazil. For this purpose, data from the National Program for Improving Access and Quality of Primary Care were used. Dentists from 12,403 oral health teams (OHTs) answered a structured questionnaire in 2012. The data were analyzed descriptively and by cluster analysis. Of the 12,387 (99.9%) OHTs that answered all the questions, 62.2% reported the existence of Dental Specialties Centers (DSCs) to which they could refer patients. The specialties with the highest frequencies were endodontics (68.4%), minor oral surgery (65.8%), periodontics (63.0%), radiology (46.8%), oral medicine (40.2%), orthodontics (20.5%) and implantology (6.2%). In all percentiles, the shortest wait time for secondary care was for radiology, followed by oral medicine and the other specialties. In the 50th percentile, the wait for endodontics, periodontics, minor oral surgery and orthodontics was 30 days, while for implantology, the wait was 60 days. Finally, in the 75th percentile, the wait for endodontics, orthodontics and implantology was 90 days or more. Two clusters, with different frequencies of OHT access to specialties, were identified. Cluster 1 (n = 7,913) included the OHTs with lower frequencies in all specialties except orthodontics and implantology compared with Cluster 2 (n = 4,474). Of the Brazilian regions, the South and Southeast regions had the highest frequencies for Cluster 2, with better rates for the relationship between primary and secondary care. This study suggests certain difficulties in the relationship between primary and secondary care in specific specialties in oral health, with a great number of OHTs with limited access to DSCs, in addition to different performance in terms of OHT access to DSCs across Brazilian regions.
| S-EPMC5068770 | biostudies-literature