Dataset Information

Quality assessment of diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care: a systematic review of quality indicators.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify existing quality indicators (QIs) for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of patients with infectious diseases in primary care.

Design

A 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.

Results

Eleven 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Saust LT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5036015 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality assessment of diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care: a systematic review of quality indicators.

Saust Laura Trolle LT Monrad Rikke Nygaard RN Hansen Malene Plejdrup MP Arpi Magnus M Bjerrum Lars L

Scandinavian journal of primary health care 20160722 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify existing quality indicators (QIs) for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of patients with infectious diseases in primary care.<h4>Design</h4>A 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 ...[more]

PMID: 27450462

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:One way of measuring the quality of home care are quality indicators (QIs) derived from data collected with the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC). In order to produce meaningful results for quality improvement and quality comparisons across home care organizations (HCOs) and over time, RAI-HC QIs must be valid and reliable. The aim of this systematic review was to identify currently existing RAI-HC QIs and to summarize the scientific knowledge on the validity and reliability of these QIs. METHODS:A systematic review was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library. Studies describing the development process or the psychometric characteristics of RAI-HC QIs were eligible. The data extraction involved a general description of the included studies as well as the identified RAI-HC QIs and information on validity and reliability. The methodological quality of the identified RAI-HC QI sets was assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. RESULTS:Four studies out of 659 initial hits met the inclusion criteria. The included studies described the development and validation process of three RAI-HC QI sets comprising 48 unique RAI-HC QIs, which predominantly refer to outcome of care. Overall, the validity and reliability of the identified RAI-HC QIs were not sufficiently tested. The methodological quality of the three identified RAI-HC QI sets varied across the four AIRE instrument domains. None of the QI sets reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% and higher in all four AIRE instrument domains. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first review that systematically summarized and appraised the available scientific evidence on the validity and reliability of RAI-HC QIs. It identified insufficient reporting of RAI-HC QIs validation processes and reliability as well as missing state-of-the-art methodologies. The review provides guidance as to what additional validity and reliability testing are needed to strengthen the scientific soundness of RAI-HC QIs. Considering that RAI-HC QIs are already implemented and used to measure and compare quality of home care, further investigations on RAI-HC QIs reliability and validity is recommended.

Project description:BackgroundLifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care.MethodsWe included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients' records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety.ResultsThe principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 ("headache") rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients' satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.

Dataset Information

Quality assessment of diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care: a systematic review of quality indicators.

Objective

Design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quality assessment of diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care: a systematic review of quality indicators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets