A RAND-Modified Delphi on Key Indicators to Measure the Efficiency of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and objectives
Many patients, providers, and potential living donors perceive the living kidney donor evaluation process to be lengthy and difficult to navigate.Design, setting, participants, & measurements
We sought consensus on key terms and process and outcome indicators that can be used to measure how efficiently a transplant center evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor. Using a RAND-modified Delphi method, 77 participants (kidney transplant recipients or recipient candidates, living kidney donors or donor candidates, health care providers, and health care administrators) completed an online survey to define the terms and indicators. The definitions were then further refined during an in-person meeting with ten stakeholders.Results
We identified 16 process indicators (e.g., average time to evaluate a donor candidate), eight outcome indicators (e.g., annual number of preemptive living kidney donor transplants), and two measures that can be considered both process and outcome indicators (e.g., average number of times a candidate visited the transplant center for the evaluation). Transplant centers wishing to implement this set of indicators will require 22 unique data elements, all of which are either readily available or easily collected prospectively.Conclusions
We identified a set of indicators through a consensus-based approach that may be used to monitor and improve the performance of a transplant center in how efficiently it evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor.
SUBMITTER: Habbous S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7536753 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors.MethodsThe Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry.ResultsTen living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%).ConclusionsThese results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.
| S-EPMC8078331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA substantial degree of variability in practices exists amongst donor hospitals regarding the donor detection, determination of brain death, application of donor management techniques or achievement of donor management goals. A possible strategy to standardize the donation process and to optimize outcomes could lie in the implementation of a care pathway. The aim of the study was to identify and select a set of relevant key interventions and quality indicators in order to develop a specific care pathway for donation after brain death and to rigorously evaluate its impact.MethodsA RAND modified three-round Delphi approach was used to build consensus within a single country about potential key interventions and quality indicators identified in existing guidelines, review articles, process flow diagrams and the results of the Organ Donation European Quality System (ODEQUS) project. Comments and additional key interventions and quality indicators, identified in the first round, were evaluated in the following rounds and a subsequent physical meeting. The study was conducted over a 4-month time period in 2016.ResultsA multidisciplinary panel of 18 Belgian experts with different relevant backgrounds completed the three Delphi rounds. Out of a total of 80 key interventions assessed throughout the Delphi process, 65 were considered to contribute to the quality of care for the management of a potential donor after brain death; 11 out of 12 quality indicators were validated for relevance and feasibility. Detection of all potential donors after brain death in the intensive care unit and documentation of cause of no donation were rated as the most important quality indicators.ConclusionsUsing a RAND modified Delphi approach, consensus was reached for a set of 65 key interventions and 11 quality indicators for the management of a potential donor after brain death. This set is considered to be applicable in quality improvement programs for the care of potential donors after brain death, while taking into account each country's legislation and regulations regarding organ donation and transplantation.
| S-EPMC6056930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur aim in this study was to develop quality indicators (QIs) for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) care that can be used as metrics for quality assessment and improvement.MethodsA RAND-modified Delphi procedure was used to develop a set of QIs. Recommendations on appropriate OPAT care in adults were retrieved from the literature using a systematic review and translated into potential QIs. These QIs were appraised and prioritized by a multidisciplinary panel of international OPAT experts in 2 questionnaire rounds combined with a meeting between rounds.ResultsThe procedure resulted in 33 OPAT-specific recommendations. The following QIs that describe recommended OPAT care were prioritized by the expert panel: the presence of a structured OPAT program, a formal OPAT care team, a policy on patient selection criteria, and a treatment and monitoring plan; assessment for OPAT should be performed by the OPAT team; patients and family should be informed about OPAT; there should be a mechanism in place for urgent discussion and review of emergent clinical problems, and a system in place for rapid communication; laboratory results should be delivered to physicians within 24 hours; and the OPAT team should document clinical response to antimicrobial management, document adverse events, and monitor QIs for OPAT care and make these data available.ConclusionsWe systematically developed a set of 33 QIs for optimal OPAT care, of which 12 were prioritized by the expert panel. These QIs can be used to assess and improve the quality of care provided by OPAT teams.
| S-EPMC7052541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOptimizing antimicrobial use (AMU) is key to reducing antimicrobial-resistant infections, but current AMU monitoring in hospital provides limited insights for quality improvement.ObjectivesTo understand stakeholders' priorities for developing national AMU surveillance in English hospitals to serve the needs of national policy makers and front-line practitioners.MethodsCharacteristics of existing AMU surveillance systems were identified from a previous systematic review and categorized by the Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side-effects and Equity (APEASE) criteria. Stakeholders prioritized characteristics using a two-round RAND-modified Delphi (rating round 1, telephone panel discussion, rating round 2). Findings informed the design of a framework used to assess the extent to which existing surveillance approaches meet stakeholders' needs.ResultsBetween 17/09/19 and 01/11/19, 24 stakeholders with national and local roles related to AMU prioritized 23 characteristics of AMU surveillance describing: resource for surveillance, data collection, data availability and pathways to translate information from surveillance into practice. No existing surveillance approaches demonstrated all prioritized characteristics. The most common limitation was failure to facilitate clinician engagement with AMU through delays in data access and/or limited availability of disaggregated metrics of prescribing.ConclusionsCurrent surveillance delivers national public health priorities but improving stewardship demands patient-level data linked to clinical outcomes. This study offers a framework to develop current surveillance to meet the needs of local stakeholders in England. Increased investment in data infrastructure and training is essential to make information held within electronic systems available to front-line clinicians to facilitate quality improvement.
| S-EPMC9465639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a longlist of healthcare quality indicators for the care of hospitalised adults of all ages with (or at risk of) low physical activity during the hospital stay.DesignA modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Delphi study.Setting and participantsParticipants were physical therapists, nurses and managers working in Dutch university medical centres.MethodsThe current study consisted of three phases. Phase I was a systematic literature search for quality indicators and relevant domains. Phase II was a survey among healthcare professionals to collect additional data. Phase III consisted of three consensus rounds. In round 1, experts rated the relevance of the potential indicators online (Delphi). The second round was a face-to-face expert panel meeting managed by an experienced moderator. Acceptability, feasibility and validity of the quality indicators were discussed by the panel members. In round 3, the panel members rated the relevance of the potential indicators that were still under discussion.ResultsThe search retrieved 1556 studies of which 53 studies were assessed full text. Data from 17 studies were included in a first draft longlist of indicators. Eighteen nurses and one physical therapist responded to the survey and added data for a second draft of the longlist. Experts constructed the final longlist of 23 indicators in three consensus rounds. Seven domains were identified: 'Policy', 'Attitude and education', 'Equipment and support', 'Evaluation', 'Information', 'Patient-tailored physical activity plan' and 'Outcome measure'.Conclusion and implicationsThe healthcare quality indicators developed in this study could help to grade, monitor and improve healthcare for hospitalised adults of all ages with (or at risk of) low physical activity during the hospital stay. Future research will focus on the psychometric quality of the indicators and selection of key performance indicators.
| S-EPMC6858236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common chronic condition and a rising public health issue with increased morbidity and mortality, even at an early stage. Primary care has a pivotal role in the early detection and in the integrated management of CKD which should be of high quality. The quality of care for CKD can be assessed using quality indicators (QIs) and if these QIs are extractable from the electronic medical record (EMR) of the general physician, the number of patients whose quality of care can be evaluated, could increase vastly. Therefore the aim of this study is to develop QIs which are evidence based, EMR extractable and which can be used as a framework to automate quality assessment.MethodsWe used a Rand-modified Delphi method to develop QIs for CKD in primary care. A questionnaire was designed by extracting recommendations from international guidelines based on the SMART principle and the EMR extractability. A multidisciplinary expert panel, including patients, individually scored the recommendations for measuring high quality care on a 9-point Likert scale. The results were analyzed based on the median Likert score, prioritization and agreement. Subsequently, the recommendations were discussed in a consensus meeting for their in- or exclusion. After a final appraisal by the panel members this resulted in a core set of recommendations, which were then transformed into QIs.ResultsA questionnaire composed of 99 recommendations was extracted from 10 international guidelines. The consensus meeting resulted in a core set of 36 recommendations that were translated into 36 QIs. This final set consists of QIs concerning definition & classification, screening, diagnosis, management consisting of follow up, treatment & vaccination, medication & patient safety and referral to a specialist. It were mostly the patients participating in the panel who stressed the importance of the QIs concerning medication & patient safety and a timely referral to a specialist.ConclusionThis study provides a set of 36 EMR extractable QIs for measuring the quality of primary care for CKD. These QIs can be used as a framework to automate quality assessment for CKD in primary care.
| S-EPMC7201612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionExtensive antibiotic use makes the intensive care unit (ICU) an important focus for antibiotic stewardship programs. The aim of this study was to develop a set of actionable quality indicators for appropriate antibiotic use at ICUs and an implementation toolbox, which can be used to assess and improve the appropriateness of antibiotic use in the treatment of adult patients at an ICU.MethodsA four round modified-RAND Delphi procedure was used. Potential indicators were identified by a multidisciplinary panel of 15 Dutch experts, from international literature and guidelines. Using an online survey, the identified indicators were rated on three criteria: relevance, actionability and feasibility. Experts discussed and rated the indicators for the second time during a face-to-face consensus meeting. During a final consensus meeting the toolbox was developed, containing potential barriers and improvement strategies which were identified using a validated checklist by Flottorp et al., and if available also containing supporting material.ResultsThe first round resulted in 24 potential indicators. After the final meeting a set of three process indicators, one structure indicator and one quantity metric remained: 1) perform at least two sets of blood cultures before start of empirical systemic therapy; 2) perform therapeutic drug monitoring in patients treated with vancomycin or aminoglycosides; 3) perform surveillance cultures if selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination is applied at the ICU; 4) biannual face-to-face meetings between ICU and microbiology staff in which local resistance rates are discussed; and 5) quantitative antibiotic use at the ICU expressed in days of therapy (DOT). The toolbox contains 24 unique barriers and 37 improvement strategies.ConclusionsOur study identified a set of four actionable quality indicators and one quantity metric, together with an implementation toolbox, to improve appropriate antibiotic use at ICUs.
| S-EPMC6264509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer (LC) screening improves LC survival; the best screening method in terms of improving survival is low-dose CT (LDCT), outpacing chest X-ray and sputum cytology.MethodsA consensus of experts in Argentina was carried out to review the literature and generate recommendations for LC screening programmes. A mixed-method study was used with three phases: (1) review of the literature; (2) modified Delphi consensus panel; and (3) development of the recommendations. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework was used to generate 13 evaluation criteria. Nineteen experts participated in four voting rounds. Consensus among participants was defined using the RAND/UCLA method.ResultsA total of 16 recommendations scored ≥7 points with no disagreement on any criteria. Screening for LC should be performed with LDCT annually in the population at high-risk, aged between 55 and 74 years, regardless of sex, without comorbidities with a risk of death higher than the risk of death from LC, smoking ≥30 pack-years or former smokers who quit smoking within 15 years. Screening will be considered positive when finding a solid nodule ≥6 mm in diameter (or ≥113 mm3) on baseline LDCT and 4 mm in diameter if a new nodule is identified on annual screening. A smoking cessation programme should be offered, and cardiovascular risk assessment should be performed. Institutions should have a multidisciplinary committee, have protocols for the management of symptomatic patients not included in the programme and distribute educational material.ConclusionThe recommendations provide a basis for minimum requirements from which local institutions can develop their own protocols adapted to their needs and resources.
| S-EPMC9900059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is an ongoing discussion on the rising CS rate worldwide. Suboptimal guideline adherence may be an important contributor to this rise. Before improvement of care can be established, optimal CS care in different settings has to be defined. This study aimed to develop and measure quality indicators to determine guideline adherence and identify target groups for improvement of care with direct effect on caesarean section (CS) rates.MethodEighteen obstetricians and midwives participated in an expert panel for systematic CS quality indicator development according to the RAND-modified Delphi method. A multi-center study was performed and medical charts of 1024 women with a CS and a stratified and weighted randomly selected group of 1036 women with a vaginal delivery were analysed. Quality indicator frequency and adherence were scored in 2060 women with a CS or vaginal delivery.ResultsThe expert panel developed 16 indicators on planned CS and 11 indicators on unplanned CS. Indicator adherence was calculated, defined as the number of women in a specific obstetrical situation in which care was performed as recommended in both planned and unplanned CS settings. The most frequently occurring obstetrical situations with low indicator adherence were: 1) suspected fetal distress (frequency 17%, adherence 46%), 2) non-progressive labour (frequency 12%, CS performed too early in over 75%), 3) continuous support during labour (frequency 88%, adherence 37%) and 4) previous CS (frequency 12%), with adequate counselling in 15%.ConclusionsWe identified four concrete target groups for improvement of obstetrical care, which can be used as a starting point to reduce CS rates worldwide.
| S-EPMC4718610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND::The goal of Palliative Day Services is to provide holistic care that contributes to the quality of life of people with life-threatening illness and their families. Quality indicators provide a means by which to describe, monitor and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services provision and act as a starting point for quality improvement. However, currently, there are no published quality indicators for Palliative Day Services. AIM::To develop and provide the first set of quality indicators that describe and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services. DESIGN AND SETTING::A modified Delphi technique was used to combine best available research evidence derived from a systematic scoping review with multidisciplinary expert appraisal of the appropriateness and feasibility of candidate indicators. The resulting indicators were compiled into 'toolkit' and tested in five UK Palliative Day Service settings. RESULTS::A panel of experts independently reviewed evidence summaries for 182 candidate indicators and provided ratings on appropriateness, followed by a panel discussion and further independent ratings of appropriateness, feasibility and necessity. This exercise resulted in the identification of 30 indicators which were used in practice testing. The final indicator set comprised 7 structural indicators, 21 process indicators and 2 outcome indicators. CONCLUSION::The indicators fulfil a previously unmet need among Palliative Day Service providers by delivering an appropriate and feasible means to assess, review, and communicate the quality of care, and to identify areas for quality improvement.
| S-EPMC6350181 | biostudies-other