An environmental scan of quality indicators in critical care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
We performed a directed environmental scan to identify and categorize quality indicators unique to critical care that are reported by key stakeholder organizations.Methods
We convened a panel of experts (n = 9) to identify key organizations that are focused on quality improvement or critical care, and reviewed their online publications and website content for quality indicators. We identified quality indicators specific to the care of critically ill adult patients and then categorized them according to the Donabedian and the Institute of Medicine frameworks. We also noted the organizations' rationale for selecting these indicators and their reported evidence base.Results
From 28 targeted organizations, we identified 222 quality indicators, 127 of which were unique. Of the 127 indicators, 63 (32.5%) were safety indicators and 61 (31.4%) were effectiveness indicators. The rationale for selecting quality indicators was supported by consensus for 58 (26.1%) of the 222 indicators and by published research evidence for 45 (20.3%); for 119 indicators (53.6%), the rationale was not reported or the reader was referred to other organizations' reports. Of the 127 unique quality indicators, 27 (21.2%) were accompanied by a formal grading of evidence, whereas for 52 (40.9%), no reference to evidence was provided.Interpretation
There are many quality indicators related to critical care that are available in the public domain. However, owing to a paucity of rationale for selection, supporting evidence and results of implementation, it is not clear which indicators should be adopted for use.
SUBMITTER: Valiani S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5498320 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An environmental scan of quality indicators in critical care.
Valiani Sabira S Rigal Romain R Stelfox Henry T HT Muscedere John J Martin Claudio M CM Dodek Peter P Lamontagne François F Fowler Robert R Gheshmy Afshan A Cook Deborah J DJ Forster Alan J AJ Hébert Paul C PC
CMAJ open 20170601 2
<h4>Background</h4>We performed a directed environmental scan to identify and categorize quality indicators unique to critical care that are reported by key stakeholder organizations.<h4>Methods</h4>We convened a panel of experts (<i>n</i> = 9) to identify key organizations that are focused on quality improvement or critical care, and reviewed their online publications and website content for quality indicators. We identified quality indicators specific to the care of critically ill adult patien ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundQuality indicators can be used to identify gaps in care and drive frontline improvement activities. These efforts are important to prevent adverse events in the increasing number of ambulatory patients with advanced kidney disease in Canada, but it is unclear what indicators exist and the components of health care quality they measure.ObjectiveWe sought to identify, categorize, and evaluate quality indicators currently in use across Canada for ambulatory patients with advanced kidney disease.DesignEnvironmental scan of quality indicators currently being collected by various organizations.SettingWe assembled a 16-member group from across Canada with expertise in nephrology and quality improvement.PatientsOur scan included indicators relevant to patients with chronic kidney disease in ambulatory care clinics.MeasurementsWe categorized the identified quality indicators using the Institute of Medicine and Donabedian frameworks.MethodsA 4-member panel used a modified Delphi process to evaluate the indicators found during the environmental scan using the American College of Physicians/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. The ratings were then shared with the full panel for further comments and approval.ResultsThe environmental scan found 28 quality indicators across 7 provinces, with 8 (29%) rated as "necessary" to distinguish high-quality from poor-quality care. Of these 8 indicators, 3 were measured by more than 1 province (% of patients on a statin, number of patients receiving a preemptive transplant, and estimated glomerular filtration rate at dialysis start); no indicator was used by more than 2 provinces. None of the indicators rated as necessary measured timely or equitable care, nor did we identify any measures that assessed the setting in which care occurs (ie, structure measures).LimitationsOur list cannot be considered as an exhaustive list of available quality indicators at hand in Canada. Our work focused on quality indicators for nephrology providers and programs, and not indicators that can be applied across primary and specialty providers. We also focused on indicator constructs and not the detailed definitions or their application. Last, our panel does not represent the views of other important stakeholders.ConclusionsOur environmental scan provides a snapshot of the scope of quality indicators for ambulatory patients with advanced kidney disease in Canada. This catalog should inform indicator selection and the development of new indicators based on the identified gaps, as well as motivate increased pan-Canadian collaboration on quality measurement and improvement.Trial registrationNot applicable as this article is not a systematic review, nor does it report results of a health intervention on human participants.
| S-EPMC7868503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for an individual requiring kidney replacement therapy, resulting in improved survival and quality of life while costing the health care system less than maintenance dialysis. Achieving and maintaining a kidney transplant requires extensive coordination of several different health care services. To improve the quality of kidney transplant care, quality metrics or indicators that encompass all aspects of the individual's journey to transplant should be measured in a standardized fashion.ObjectiveTo identify, categorize, and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used across Canada.DesignAn environmental scan of quality indicators being used by kidney organizations and programs.SettingA 16-member volunteer pan-Canadian panel with expertise in nephrology, transplant, and quality improvement.SampleTransplant programs, as well as provincial transplant and kidney agencies across Canada.MethodsIndicators were first categorized based on the period of transplant care and then using the Institute of Medicine and Donabedian frameworks. A 4-member subcommittee rated each indicator using a modified version of the Delphi consensus technique based on the American College of Physician/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. Consensus ratings were subsequently shared with the entire 16-member panel for additional comments.ResultsWe identified 46 measures related to transplant care across 7 Canadian provinces (9 referral and evaluation, 9 waitlist activity and outcomes, 6 hospitalization for transplant surgery, 12 posttransplant care, 6 organ utilization, 4 living donor). We rated 24 indicators (52%) as necessary to distinguish high-quality from low-quality care, most of which measured effective (n = 10) or efficient (n = 6) care. Only 7 (15%) of 46 indicators evaluated person-centered or equitable care. Fourteen common indicators were measured by 5 of 7 provinces, 10 of which were deemed "necessary," measuring safe (n = 2), effective (n = 5), efficient (n = 2), and equitable (n = 1) care.LimitationsThe panel lacked patient and allied health representation.ConclusionsThere are a large number of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used in Canada, some of which are common across provinces and focus primarily on measuring effective care. Person-centered and equitable care indicators were lacking, and only half of these indicators were deemed "necessary" for quality improvement. Our results should complement ongoing work to achieve national consensus on the standardization of quality indicators in kidney transplantation.
| S-EPMC8243101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality indicators are important tools to measure and ultimately improve the quality of care provided. Performance measurement may be particularly helpful to grow disciplines that are underutilized and cost-effective, such as home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis).ObjectiveTo identify and catalog home dialysis quality indicators currently used in Canada, as well as to evaluate these indicators as a starting point for future collaboration and standardization of quality indicators across Canada.DesignAn environmental scan of quality indicators from provincial organizations, quality organizations, and stakeholders.SettingSixteen-member pan-Canadian panel with expertise in both nephrology and quality improvement.PatientsOur environmental scan included indicators relevant to patients on home dialysis.MeasurementsWe classified existing indicators based on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Donabedian frameworks.MethodsTo evaluate the indicators, a 6-person subcommittee conducted a modified version of the Delphi consensus technique based on the American College of Physicians/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. We shared these consensus ratings with the entire 16-member panel for further examination. We rated items from 1 to 9 on 6 domains (1-3 does not meet criteria to 7-9 meets criteria) as well as a global final rating (1-3 unnecessary to 7-9 necessary) to distinguish high-quality from low-quality indicators.ResultsOverall, we identified 40 quality indicators across 7 provinces, with 22 (55%) rated as "necessary" to distinguish high quality from poor quality care. Ten indicators were measured by more than 1 province, and 5 of these indicators were rated as necessary (home dialysis prevalence, home dialysis incidence, anemia target achievement, rates of peritonitis associated with peritoneal dialysis, and home dialysis attrition). None of these indicators captured the IOM domains of timely, patient-centered, or equitable care.LimitationsThe environmental scan is a nonexhaustive list of quality indicators in Canada. The panel also lacked representation from patients, administrators, and allied health professionals.ConclusionsThese results provide Canadian home dialysis programs with a starting point on how to measure quality of care along with the current gaps. This work is an initial and necessary step toward future collaboration and standardization of quality indicators across Canada, so that home dialysis programs can access a smaller number of highly rated balanced indicators to motivate and support patient-centered quality improvement initiatives.
| S-EPMC7734484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement is attracting the attention of the primary health care system as a means by which to achieve higher quality patient care. Ontario, Canada has demonstrated leadership in terms of its improvement in healthcare, but the province lacks a structured framework by which it can consistently evaluate its quality improvement initiatives specific to the primary healthcare system. The intent of this research was to complete an environmental scan and capacity map of quality improvement activities being built in and by the primary healthcare sector (QI-PHC) in Ontario as a first step to developing a coordinated and sustainable framework of primary healthcare for the province.MethodsData were collected between January and July 2011 in collaboration with an advisory group of stakeholder representatives and quality improvement leaders in primary health care. Twenty participants were interviewed by telephone, followed by review of relevant websites and documents identified in the interviews. Data were systematically examined using Framework Analysis augmented by Prior's approach to document analysis in an iterative process.ResultsThe environmental scan identified many activities (n=43) designed to strategically build QI-PHC capacity, identify promising QI-PHC practices and outcomes, scale up quality improvement-informed primary healthcare practice changes, and make quality improvement a core organizational strategy in health care delivery, which were grouped into clusters. Cluster 1 was composed of initiatives in the form of on-going programs that deliberately incorporated long-term quality improvement capacity building through province-wide reach. Cluster 2 represented activities that were time-limited (research, pilot, or demonstration projects) with the primary aim of research production. The activities of most primary health care practitioners, managers, stakeholder organizations and researchers involved in this scan demonstrated a shared vision of QI-PHC in Ontario. However, this vision was not necessarily collaboratively developed nor were activities necessarily strategically linked.ConclusionsWithin the scope of this research, the scan affirmed that there is currently no province-wide, integrated, and measured quality improvement program for the primary healthcare sector in Ontario. This could be improved by the development of a coordinated plan, an accompanying accountability framework, and an appropriate sustainable funding envelope for QI-PHC at the provincial level.
| S-EPMC3720221 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6019081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Outpatient antibiotic use in Belgium is among the highest in Europe. The most common reason for an encounter in out-of-hours (OOH) primary care is an infection. In this study, we assessed all consultations from July 2016 to June 2018 at five OOH services. We described antibiotic prescribing by diagnosis, calculated disease-specific antibiotic prescribing quality indicators' (APQI) values and critically appraised these APQI. We determined that 111,600 encounters resulted in 26,436 (23.7%) antibiotic prescriptions. The APQI diagnoses (i.e., bronchitis, upper respiratory infection, cystitis, tonsillitis, sinusitis, otitis media, and pneumonia) covered 14,927 (56.7%) antibiotic prescriptions. Erysipelas (1344 (5.1%)) and teeth/gum disease (982 (3.7%)) covered more prescriptions than sinusitis or pneumonia. Over 75% of patients with tonsillitis and over 50% with bronchitis, sinusitis, and otitis media were prescribed an antibiotic. Only for otitis media the choice of antibiotic was near the acceptable range. Over 10% of patients with bronchitis or pneumonia and over 25% of female patients with an acute cystitis received quinolones. The APQI cover the diagnoses for only 57% of all antibiotic prescriptions. As 5.1% and 3.7% of antibiotic prescriptions are made for erysipelas and teeth/gum disease, respectively, we propose to add these indications when assessing antibiotic prescribing quality in OOH primary care.
| S-EPMC6628021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExcess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management (Berenholtz et al., J Crit Care 17:1-2, 2002; De Vos et al., J Crit Care 22:267-74, 2007; Zimmerman J Crit Care 1:12-5, 2002). Routine measurement of quality indicators (QIs) through an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on QIs for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and both the reported advantages and challenges of implementation.MethodWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase the sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform or EHR adapted for quality of care surveillance.ResultsThe search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. Fifty-one unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%), hospital processes (54.9%), and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%).ConclusionsDespite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder-driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritized and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.
| S-EPMC8339165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current study provides an overview of quantity and quality of MRI data in a large developmental twin sample (N = 512, aged 7-9), and investigated to what extent scan quantity and quality were influenced by genetic and environmental factors. This was examined in a fixed scan protocol consisting of two functional MRI tasks, high resolution structural anatomy (3DT1) and connectivity (DTI) scans, and a resting state scan. Overall, scan quantity was high (88% of participants completed all runs), while scan quality decreased with increasing session length. Scanner related distress was negatively associated with scan quantity (i.e., completed runs), but not with scan quality (i.e., included runs). In line with previous studies, behavioral genetic analyses showed that genetics explained part of the variation in head motion, with heritability estimates of 29% for framewise displacement and 65% for absolute displacement. Additionally, our results revealed that subtle head motion (after exclusion of excessive head motion) showed lower heritability estimates (0-14%), indicating that findings of motion-corrected and quality-controlled MRI data may be less confounded by genetic factors. These findings provide insights in factors contributing to scan quality in children, an issue that is highly relevant for the field of developmental neuroscience.
| S-EPMC6969338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare providers working for cardiovascular intensive care often face challenges and they play an essential role in palliative care and end-of-life care because of the high mortality rates in the cardiac intensive care unit. Unfortunately, there are several barriers to integrating palliative care, cardiovascular care, and intensive care. The main reasons are as follows: cardiovascular disease-specific trajectories differ from cancer, there is uncertainty associated with treatments and diagnoses, aggressive treatments are necessary for symptom relief, and there is ethical dilemma regarding withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Quality indicators that can iterate the minimum requirements of each medical discipline could be used to overcome these barriers and effectively practice palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Unfortunately, there are no specific quality indicators for palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. A few indicators and their domains are useful for understanding current palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Among them, several domains, such as symptom palliation, patient- and family-centered decision-making, continuity of care, and support for health care providers that are particularly important in cardiovascular intensive care.Historically, the motivation for using quality indicators is to summarize mechanisms for external accountability and verification, and formative mechanisms for quality improvement. Practically, when using quality indicators, it is necessary to check structural indicators in each healthcare service line, screen palliative care at the first visit, and integrate palliative care teams with other professionals. Finally, we would like to state that quality indicators in cardiovascular intensive care could be useful as an educational tool for practicing palliative care, understanding the minimum requirements, and as a basic structure for future discussions.
| S-EPMC8922808 | 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