Dataset Information

Quality indicators for clinical care of patients with hypertension: scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases impose significant financial impact on countries implementing universal health coverage (UHC). Hypertension is a primary disease that will lead to more severe conditions without adequate clinical care. The quality of its clinical care must be well assessed in order to measure the effective coverage of people with hypertension in UHC. This study aims to identify indicators that can be used to measure the quality of clinical care provided to patients with hypertension in healthcare facilities.

Methods and analysis

This review will be conducted using the six stages of the scoping review method: identifying the research question, searching for relevant studies, selecting studies, charting the data, collating, summarising and reporting the results, and conducting consultation exercises. The review will include all quality indicators used for clinical care of patients with hypertension at any healthcare facility. All research designs will be included. Search strategies are developed using the medical subject headings and keywords related to hypertension and quality indicators. Several electronic databases, that is, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science, including clinical-guideline databases from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Health Service Evidence and Medical Information Network Distribution Service, and also grey literature will be used. Two researchers will screen the titles and abstracts and review the full text of selected articles to determine the final inclusion. The results will be summarised quantitatively, using numerical counts, and qualitatively, using thematic analysis. The data extraction will include a complete list and detailed profile of all indicators. Stakeholder consultation will be conducted at the beginning and after preliminary results to translate findings to the potential knowledge users.

Ethical considerations and dissemination

Reviews of published articles are considered secondary analysis and do not need ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through various strategies, such as policy briefs, conferences, peer-reviewed journals, and on selected websites relevant to the subject.

Study status

Data collection for the scoping review will include publications up to May 2019, and the analysis will start in June 2019.

SUBMITTER: Djasri H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6661615 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality indicators for clinical care of patients with hypertension: scoping review protocol.

Djasri Hanevi H Laras Sekar S Utarini Adi A

BMJ open 20190716 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Cardiovascular diseases impose significant financial impact on countries implementing universal health coverage (UHC). Hypertension is a primary disease that will lead to more severe conditions without adequate clinical care. The quality of its clinical care must be well assessed in order to measure the effective coverage of people with hypertension in UHC. This study aims to identify indicators that can be used to measure the quality of clinical care provided to patients wi ...[more]

PMID: 31315856

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHip fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality and care of hip fracture patients places a heavy burden on healthcare systems due to prolonged recovery time. Measuring quality of care delivered to hip fracture patients is important to help target efforts to improve care for patients and efficiency of the health system. The purpose of this study is to synthesise the evidence surrounding quality of care indicators for patients who have sustained a hip fracture. Using a scoping review methodology, the research question that will be addressed is: "What patient, institutional, and system-level indicators are currently in use or proposed for measuring quality of care across the continuum for individuals following a hip fracture?".Methods and analysisWe will employ the methodological frameworks used by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. The synthesis will be limited to quality of care indicators for individuals who suffered low trauma hip fracture. All English peer-reviewed studies published from the year 2000-most recent will be included. Literature search strategies will be developed using medical subject headings and text words related to hip fracture quality indicators and the search will be peer-reviewed. Numerous electronic databases will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, followed by screening of the full text of potentially relevant articles to determine final inclusion. Abstracted data will include study characteristics and indicator definitions.DisseminationTo improve quality of care for patients and create a more efficient healthcare system, mechanisms for the measurement of quality of care are required. The implementation of quality of care indicators enables stakeholders to target areas for improvement in service delivery. Knowledge translation activities will occur throughout the review with dissemination of the project goals and findings to local, national, and international stakeholders.

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency care services are rapidly expanding in Africa; however, development must focus on quality. The African Federation of Emergency Medicine consensus conference (AFEM-CC)-based quality indicators were published in 2018. This study sought to increase knowledge of quality through identifying all publications from Africa containing data relevant to the AFEM-CC process clinical and outcome quality indicators.DesignWe conducted searches for general quality of emergency care in Africa and for each of 28 AFEM-CC process clinical and five outcome clinical quality indicators individually in the medical and grey literature.Data sourcesPubMed (1964-2 January 2022), Embase (1947-2 January 2022) and CINAHL (1982-3 January 2022) and various forms of grey literature were queried.Eligibility criteriaStudies published in English, addressing the African emergency care population as a whole or large subsegment of this population (eg, trauma, paediatrics), and matching AFEM-CC process quality indicator parameters exactly were included. Studies with similar, but not exact match, data were collected separately as 'AFEM-CC quality indicators near match'.Data extraction and synthesisDocument screening was done in duplicate by two authors, using Covidence, and conflicts were adjudicated by a third. Simple descriptive statistics were calculated.ResultsOne thousand three hundred and fourteen documents were reviewed, 314 in full text. 41 studies met a priori criteria and were included, yielding 59 unique quality indicator data points. Documentation and assessment quality indicators accounted for 64% of data points identified, clinical care for 25% and outcomes for 10%. An additional 53 'AFEM-CC quality indicators near match' publications were identified (38 new publications and 15 previously identified studies that contained additional 'near match' data), yielding 87 data points.ConclusionsData relevant to African emergency care facility-based quality indicators are highly limited. Future publications on emergency care in Africa should be aware of, and conform with, AFEM-CC quality indicators to strengthen understanding of quality.

Project description:BackgroundOffshore industries operate all around the world in diverse and remote environments. The use of telemedicine to ensure up-to-date medical care for thousands of people offshore has been common practice for decades. Thus, in this setting, extensive experiences with this type of health care delivery have already been gathered, while in other settings this is just beginning. However, the quality of telemedical care on offshore installations is rarely reported yet. The objective of this review was to explore published literature with regards to the following questions: Have any Quality Indicators (QIs) been published for measuring the quality of telemedical care on offshore installations or are there identifiable items that could be used as such QIs?MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) of the published literature using the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (Core Collection), and Google Scholar. Search results were read and QIs or findings from which QIs could be derived were classified according to the dimensions of quality established by Donabedian (structure, process, or outcome QIs).ResultsThe search returned 10,236 non-recurring articles, 45 of which were full-text screened and 15 of which were included in this review. Types of publications were heterogenous. No QIs for the quality of telemedical care offshore have been published yet. Findings that could be the basis for QIs focused on structure quality (11 QIs) followed by process quality (11 QIs), while outcome quality was less common (1 QI).ConclusionCurrently, although years of experience with telemedical care on offshore installations exist, there is a paucity of research on a solid data base regarding the quality of telemedical care offshore. The authors derived a list of 24 possible QIs from the findings of the publications for further validation. This could be the basis for implementation and definition of QIs in this and in similar remote settings.

Project description:With an ageing population and increasing numbers of people with life-limiting illness, there is a growing demand for palliative day services. There is a need to measure and demonstrate the quality of these services, but there is currently little agreement on which aspects of care should be used to do this. The aim of the scoping review will be to map the extent, range and nature of the evidence around models of delivery, care domains and existing quality indicators used to evaluate palliative day services.Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched for evidence using consensus development methods; randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials; mixed methods; and prospective, longitudinal or retrospective case-control studies to develop or test quality indicators for evaluating palliative care within non-residential settings, including day hospices and community or primary care settings. At least two researchers will independently conduct all searches, study selection and data abstraction procedures. Meta-analyses and statistical methods of synthesis are not planned as part of the review. Results will be reported using numerical counts, including number of indicators in each care domain and by using qualitative approach to describe important indicator characteristics. A conceptual model will also be developed to summarise the impact of different aspects of quality in a palliative day service context. Methodological quality relating to indicator development will be assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool. Overall strength of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Final decisions on quality assessment will be made via consensus between review authors.Identifying, developing and implementing evidence-based quality indicators is critical to the evaluation and continued improvement of palliative care. Review findings will be used to support clinicians and policymakers make decisions on which quality indicators are most appropriate for evaluating day services at the patient and service level, and to identify areas for further research.

Project description:BackgroundQuality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality. Currently, there is no basic set of quality indicators for chiropractic care published in peer-reviewed literature. The goal of this research is to develop a preliminary set of quality indicators, measurable with administrative data.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review searching PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases. Eligible articles were published after 2011, in English, developing/reporting best practices and clinical guidelines specifically developed for, or directly applicable to, chiropractic care. Eligible non-peer-reviewed sources such as quality measures published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Royal College of Chiropractors quality standards were also included. Following a stepwise eligibility determination process, data abstraction identified specific statements from included sources that can conceivably be measured with administrative data. Once identified, statements were transformed into potential indicators by: 1) Generating a brief title and description; 2) Documenting a source; 3) Developing a metric; and 4) Assigning a Donabedian category (structure, process, outcome). Draft indicators then traversed a 5-step assessment: 1) Describes a narrowly defined structure, process, or outcome; 2) Quantitative data can conceivably be available; 3) Performance is achievable; 4) Metric is relevant; 5) Data are obtainable within reasonable time limits. Indicators meeting all criteria were included in the final set.ResultsLiterature searching revealed 2562 articles. After removing duplicates and conducting eligibility determination, 18 remained. Most were clinical guidelines (n = 10) and best practice recommendations (n = 6), with 1 consensus and 1 clinical standards development study. Data abstraction and transformation produced 204 draft quality indicators. Of those, 57 did not meet 1 or more assessment criteria. After removing duplicates, 70 distinct indicators remained. Most indicators matched the Donabedian category of process (n = 35), with 31 structure and 4 outcome indicators. No sources were identified to support indicator development from patient perspectives.ConclusionsThis article proposes a preliminary set of 70 quality indicators for chiropractic care, theoretically measurable with administrative data and largely obtained from electronic health records. Future research should assess feasibility, achieve stakeholder consensus, develop additional indicators including those considering patient perspectives, and study relationships with clinical outcomes.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework, https://osf.io/t7kgm.

Project description:BackgroundRecently, measuring and benchmarking provision of healthcare services has drawn a considerable attention. This scoping review was conducted to identify, describe, and summarize studies in which the Delphi technique was used to develop quality indicators of pharmaceutical care. The study also aimed to identify activities and services that could be used to capture the impact of pharmacist in integrative medicine.MethodsDatabases were searched from inception to February 2020 using key terms that were combined using Boolean operators. Studies were included if they were relevant to development of quality indicators of pharmaceutical care with regard to medications or complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities. Full text of the selected studies was imported into EndNote. Studies were screened and data were extracted into a standard extraction form.ResultsData were extracted from 31 studies. Of those, 24 (77.4%) were related to provision of pharmaceutical services relevant to medications and 7 (22.6%) were related to provision of care using CAM modalities. Most of the studies (67.7%) were published in 2010 and beyond. Almost half of the studies (48.4%) originated from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. A total of 42 different activities and services that could be used as quality indicators were identified from the studies included in this review. Activities and services were related to history taking, performing reconciliations, identifying and resolving therapy problems, providing collaborative care, designing care plans, optimal performance, and continuing education.ConclusionsAlthough there is an increasing interest in improving healthcare delivery, quality indicators of pharmaceutical services and those relevant to CAM provision in healthcare facilities adopting the integrated healthcare paradigm are still limited. Future studies are needed to develop validated quality indicators that could be successfully used in measuring and benchmarking quality of services in integrated healthcare facilities.

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.

Dataset Information

Quality indicators for clinical care of patients with hypertension: scoping review protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethical considerations and dissemination

Study status

Publications

Quality indicators for clinical care of patients with hypertension: scoping review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets