Dataset Information

The development of indicator measure for monitoring the quality of patient-centered care in China's tertiary hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop a set of structure and process indicators to evaluate tertiary hospitals' performance in the Healthcare Improvement Initiative, a national program with a goal to improve quality of patient-centered care.

Methods

A modified Delphi technique, including literature review, multidisciplinary panel meeting and anonymous rating, was used to generate a set of indicators. A practice test involving both general and special hospitals was conducted to ensure the feasibility of data collection for these indicators.

Results

62 indicators were generated by literature review. The panel review procedure involving 39 panelists with diverse backgrounds resulted in a total of 59 indicators, which included 40 qualitative indicators and 19 quantitative indicators. In the practice test, six quantitative indicators were found unfeasible. According to the suggestion of the experts in the hospital evaluation committee, three of those indicators were kept by adjusting their data collection methods, while other three ones were discarded.

Discussion

A set of 56 structure and process indicators was developed to evaluate hospitals' performance in the implementation of the Healthcare Improvement Initiative, which could be used in both general and special tertiary hospitals. Results of the indicator measurement could present a panorama of the quality of patient-centered care in tertiary hospitals nation-wide, and inform health administrators of the ways to attain the goal of the Initiative.

SUBMITTER: Zhou H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6181381 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The development of indicator measure for monitoring the quality of patient-centered care in China's tertiary hospitals.

Zhou Huixuan H Bai Ge G Gao Jiechun J Zhou Yinan Y Ma Emily E Hu Linlin L Hu Guangyu G Zhao Pengyu P Jiang Feng F Luo Li L Liu Yuanli Y

PloS one 20181011 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop a set of structure and process indicators to evaluate tertiary hospitals' performance in the Healthcare Improvement Initiative, a national program with a goal to improve quality of patient-centered care.<h4>Methods</h4>A modified Delphi technique, including literature review, multidisciplinary panel meeting and anonymous rating, was used to generate a set of indicators. A practice test involving both general and special hospitals was conducted to ensure the feasibili ...[more]

PMID: 30308021

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the perceived importance of Patient-Centered Care (PCC) among Palestinian doctors and how the provider and other clinical characteristics may impact their views on PCC is essential to determine the extent to which PCC can be implemented. This study investigates the provision of PCC among hospital doctors in a developing and unstable country, namely, Palestine.MethodsThis descriptive, cross-sectional research employed self-report survey among 369 Palestinian doctors working in hospitals in 2016. Respondents completed the Provider-Patient Relationship Questionnaire (PPRQ) and were asked to rate the importance of 16 PCC subjects in a context-free manner. Then they scored the existence of eight contextual attributes in their workplace.ResultsAlthough 71.4% of the participants got training in communication, only 45% of the participants knew about PCC. 48.8% of doctors considered the "exchange of information" with patients most important PCC component. Clustering identified three groups of doctors: 32.4% of doctors reported good perceptions of PCC, 47.5% moderate; and 20.1% poor. Older, married, and specialist doctors and those familiar with PCC are more likely classified in the "good" cluster. Results revealed a significant difference between doctors' views based on their gender, experience, marital status, previous knowledge about PCC, and type of hospital in favor of males, experienced, married, familiar with PCC, and doctors in private hospital respectively. The level of job interest, nurses' cooperation, the tendency of patients to hide information, and doctor's friendly style were positively related with more perceived importance of PCC.ConclusionWe identified benchmark doctors who perceive the high relative importance of PCC. Our results highlighted knowledge gaps and training weaknesses among doctors in public and private hospitals in respect to their views on PCC. Decision makers may invest in the determined contextual predictors to enhance attitudes towards PCC. This work doesn't address patients' views on PCC.

Project description:BackgroundProviding high quality care is important and has gained more attention since the introduction of value-based healthcare. Value should be measured by outcomes achieved, relevant for patients. Patient-centeredness is one domain for quality improvement determined by the Institute of Medicine, aiming to deliver care responsive to the patient. The development and implementation of patient reported outcome- and experience measures can be used for this goal. Recently, we developed the Patient Reported Measure (PRM)-acute care, based on five relevant domains to evaluate and improve the quality of care in the Emergency Department (ED).ObjectiveTo validate the PRM-acute care, in order to evaluate and improve patient-centered care in the ED.MethodsWe performed a prospective questionnaire-based study. Patients ≥18 years presenting for internal medicine in the ED were eligible. The validity of the PRM-acute care was evaluated according to the COSMIN-criteria. We performed hypotheses testing to evaluate construct validity. The perceived quality of care was evaluated by statistical analysis.ResultsFace- and content validity was evaluated based on previously performed research and deemed good. Construct validity was supported by demonstrated differences between subgroups; patients with severe symptoms had a higher perceived quality of care. The correlation between overall satisfaction and the total mean score of the PRM-acute care (r = 0,447, p = 0.01) was significant. Overall, patients reported a mean perceived quality of care of 4.67/6.0.ConclusionThe PRM-acute care is a valid instrument to measure the perceived quality of care in an acute setting for internal medicine patients. Additionally, patients reported a good perceived quality of care in the ED with scores ranging from moderate to well for each of the relevant domains. Therefore, we believe that the PRM-acute care can be implemented in daily practice to evaluate the perceived quality of care and to improve the quality of acute care.

Project description:The relationship between patient satisfaction and surgical quality is unclear for US hospitals. Using national data, we examined if hospitals with high patient satisfaction have lower levels of performance on accepted measures of the quality and efficiency of surgical care.Federal policymakers have made patient satisfaction a core measure for the way hospitals are evaluated and paid through the value-based purchasing program. There is broad concern that performance on patient satisfaction may have little or even a negative correlation with the quality of surgical care, leading to potential trade-offs in efforts to improve patient experience with other surgical quality measures.We used the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey data from 2010 and 2011 to assess performance on patient experience. We used national Medicare data on 6 common surgical procedures to calculate measures of surgical efficiency and quality: risk-adjusted length of stay, process score, risk-adjusted mortality rate, risk-adjusted readmission rate, and a composite z score across all 4 metrics. Multivariate models adjusting for hospital characteristics were used to assess the independent relationships between patient satisfaction and measures of surgical efficiency and quality.Of the 2953 US hospitals that perform one of these 6 procedures, the median patient satisfaction score was 69.5% (interquartile range, 63%-75.5%). Length of stay was shorter in hospitals with the highest levels of patient satisfaction (7.1 days vs 7.7 days, P < 0.001). Adjusting for procedural volume and structural characteristics, institutions in the highest quartile of patient satisfaction had the higher process of care performance (96.5 vs 95.5, P < 0.001), lower readmission rates (12.3% vs 13.6%, P < 0.001), and lower mortality (3.1% vs 3.6%) than those in the lowest quartile. Hospitals with high patient satisfaction also had a higher composite score for quality across all measures (P < 0.001).Among US hospitals that perform major surgical procedures, hospitals with high patient satisfaction provided more efficient care and were associated with higher surgical quality. Our findings suggest there need not be a trade-off between good quality of care for surgical patients and ensuring a positive patient experience.

Project description:Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play a crucial role in the US rural safety net. Current policy efforts have focused primarily on helping these small, isolated hospitals remain financially viable to ensure access for individuals living in rural areas in the United States; however, little is known about the quality of care they provide or the outcomes their patients achieve.To examine the quality of care and patient outcomes at CAHs and to understand why patterns of care might differ for CAHs vs non-CAHs.A retrospective analysis in 4738 US hospitals of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (10,703 for CAHs vs 469,695 for non-CAHs), congestive heart failure (CHF) (52,927 for CAHs vs 958,790 for non-CAHs), and pneumonia (86,359 for CAHs vs 773,227 for non-CAHs) who were discharged in 2008-2009.Clinical capabilities, performance on processes of care, and 30-day mortality rates, adjusted for age, sex, race, and medical comorbidities.Compared with other hospitals (n = 3470), 1268 CAHs (26.8%) were less likely to have intensive care units (380 [30.0%] vs 2581 [74.4%], P < .001), cardiac catheterization capabilities (6 [0.5%] vs 1654 [47.7%], P < .001), and at least basic electronic health records (80 [6.5%] vs 445 [13.9%], P < .001). The CAHs had lower performance on processes of care than non-CAHs for all 3 conditions examined (concordance with Hospital Quality Alliance process measures for AMI, 91.0% [95% CI, 89.7%-92.3%] vs 97.8% [95% CI, 97.7%-97.9%]; for CHF, 80.6% [95% CI, 79.2%-82.0%] vs 93.5% [95% CI, 93.3%-93.7%]; and for pneumonia, 89.3% [95% CI, 88.6%-90.0%] vs 93.7% [95% CI, 93.6%-93.9%]; P < .001 for each). Patients admitted to CAHs had higher 30-day mortality rates for each condition than those admitted to non-CAHs (for AMI: 23.5% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-1.80; P < .001; for CHF: 13.4% vs 10.9%; adjusted OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32; P < .001; and for pneumonia: 14.1% vs 12.1%; adjusted OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.24; P < .001).Compared with non-CAHs, CAHs had fewer clinical capabilities, worse measured processes of care, and higher mortality rates for patients with AMI, CHF, or pneumonia.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators. METHODS:A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool. RESULTS:The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N = 24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N = 7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N = 49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N = 41, 82%), benchmarking (N = 42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N = 41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N = 48, 98%). CONCLUSIONS:This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future.

Project description:PurposeTo develop a set of actionable quality indicators for critical care suitable for use in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsA list of 84 candidate indicators compiled from a previous literature review and stakeholder recommendations were categorised into three domains (foundation, process, and quality impact). An expert panel (EP) representing stakeholders from critical care and allied specialties in multiple low-, middle-, and high-income countries was convened. In rounds one and two of the Delphi exercise, the EP appraised (Likert scale 1-5) each indicator for validity, feasibility; in round three sensitivity to change, and reliability were additionally appraised. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the quality indicators were also reported in this round. Median score and interquartile range (IQR) were used to determine consensus; indicators with consensus disagreement (median < 4, IQR ≤ 1) were removed, and indicators with consensus agreement (median ≥ 4, IQR ≤ 1) or no consensus were retained. In round four, indicators were prioritised based on their ability to impact cost of care to the provider and recipient, staff well-being, patient safety, and patient-centred outcomes.ResultsSeventy-one experts from 30 countries (n = 45, 63%, representing critical care) selected 57 indicators to assess quality of care in intensive care unit (ICU) in LMICs: 16 foundation, 27 process, and 14 quality impact indicators after round three. Round 4 resulted in 14 prioritised indicators. Fifty-seven respondents reported barriers and facilitators, of which electronic registry-embedded data collection was the biggest perceived facilitator to implementation (n = 54/57, 95%) Concerns over burden of data collection (n = 53/57, 93%) and variations in definition (n = 45/57, 79%) were perceived as the greatest barrier to implementation.ConclusionThis consensus exercise provides a common set of indicators to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for critical care populations in LMICs.

Dataset Information

The development of indicator measure for monitoring the quality of patient-centered care in China's tertiary hospitals.

Objective

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

The development of indicator measure for monitoring the quality of patient-centered care in China's tertiary hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets