Dataset Information

How well does your massive transfusion protocol perform? A scoping review of quality indicators.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Management of patients with major haemorrhage often requires urgent administration of multiple blood products, commonly termed a massive transfusion (MT). Clinical practice in these scenarios is supported in part by evidence-based MT guidelines, which typically recommend use of an MT protocol (MTP). MTPs aim to provide practical and specific interpretation of MT guidelines for local institutional use, outlining tasks and pre-configuration of blood product packs to be transfused to provide efficient and evidence-based transfusion management. Institutions can support this aim by the measurement of MTP performance and patient outcomes through collection of quality indicators (QI). Many international guidelines now recommend the routine collection of a range of QIs relating to MT/MTP; however, there is significant variation in procedures and no benchmarks or minimal evidence to guide practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted a scoping review to document and evaluate reported QIs for MTP. We conducted a search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for published studies from inception until May 14, 2020, that reported at least one MTP QI and use of an MTP or equivalent protocol. Included studies were evaluated using a QI classification system based on current MT QI guidelines and the Donabedian QI framework. RESULTS:We identified 107 eligible studies. Trauma patients were the most commonly evaluated group, and total blood products transfused and in-hospital mortality were the most commonly reported QIs. Reflecting the lack of international consensus and benchmarks, we found significant variability in the reporting of QIs, which often did not reflect guideline recommendations. DISCUSSION:Our review highlights the importance of establishing international consensus on prioritised QIs with quantifiable targets that are important to the process of MT.

SUBMITTER: Sanderson B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7605884 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How well does your massive transfusion protocol perform? A scoping review of quality indicators.

Sanderson Brenton B Coiera Enrico E Asrianti Lia L Field Jeremy J Estcourt Lise J LJ Wood Erica M EM

Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue 20200918 6

<h4>Background</h4>Management of patients with major haemorrhage often requires urgent administration of multiple blood products, commonly termed a massive transfusion (MT). Clinical practice in these scenarios is supported in part by evidence-based MT guidelines, which typically recommend use of an MT protocol (MTP). MTPs aim to provide practical and specific interpretation of MT guidelines for local institutional use, outlining tasks and pre-configuration of blood product packs to be transfuse ...[more]

PMID: 32955419

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:IntroductionCardiovascular 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 analysisThis 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 disseminationReviews 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 statusData collection for the scoping review will include publications up to May 2019, and the analysis will start in June 2019.

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:BackgroundWith 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.MethodsElectronic 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.DiscussionIdentifying, 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:BackgroundInternationally, people in prison should receive a standard of healthcare provision equivalent to people living in the community. Yet efforts to assess the quality of healthcare through the use of quality indicators or performance measures have been much more widely reported in the community than in the prison setting. This review aims to provide an overview of research undertaken to develop quality indicators suitable for prison healthcare.MethodsAn international scoping review of articles published in English was conducted between 2004 and 2021. Searches of six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, PsycInfo and Criminal Justice Abstracts) were supplemented with journal searches, author searches and forwards and backwards citation tracking.ResultsTwelve articles were included in the review, all of which were from the United States. Quality indicator selection processes varied in rigour, and there was no evidence of patient involvement in consultation activities. Selected indicators predominantly measured healthcare processes rather than health outcomes or healthcare structure. Difficulties identified in developing performance measures for the prison setting included resource constraints, data system functionality, and the comparability of the prison population to the non-incarcerated population.ConclusionsSelecting performance measures for healthcare that are evidence-based, relevant to the population and feasible requires rigorous and transparent processes. Balanced sets of indicators for prison healthcare need to reflect prison population trends, be operable within data systems and be aligned with equivalence principles. More effort needs to be made to meaningfully engage people with lived experience in stakeholder consultations on prison healthcare quality. Monitoring healthcare structure, processes and outcomes in prison settings will provide evidence to improve care quality with the aim of reducing health inequalities experienced by people living in prison.

Project description:IntroductionComposite indicators of quality and safety in healthcare summarise performance across multiple indicators into a single performance measure. Composite indicators can identify domains and drivers of quality, improve the ability to detect differences, aid prioritisation for quality improvement and facilitate decision making about future healthcare needs. However, the use of composite indicators can be controversial, particularly when used to rank healthcare providers. Many of the concerns around transparency, appropriateness and uncertainty may be addressed by a robust and transparent development and review process.The aim of this scoping review is to describe methodologies used at each of the stages of development of composite indicators of quality and safety in healthcare. This review will provide those tasked with developing or reviewing composite indicators with a valuable consolidated analysis of a substantial and wide-ranging literature.Methods and analysisThe framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and enhancements proposed by Peters et al (2015, 2017, 2020) will be used in conducting this scoping review, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews will guide the reporting. Grey literature and peer-reviewed documents will be in-scope. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ABI/INFORM and SafetyLit) will be searched, and publications will be screened by two reviewers. Discussion, policy and guidance publications will be included if they discuss any aspect of the methods used in the development of a composite indicator of quality or safety in a healthcare setting. The search period ranges from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022. Data extraction will capture information on 11 stages of composite indicator development, augmenting a 10-stage framework developed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

Project description:IntroductionCricket is a popular sport played by 2.5 billion people of all ages and abilities. However, cricket participation is decreasing in the UK, despite an increased focus of governments on increasing sport participation to enhance public health. Understanding the health benefits and mitigating the health risks of cricket participation may help cricket organisations promote cricket participation while optimising the long-term health of cricket participants. Currently, there is no literature review on the relationship between cricket participation, health and well-being; thus, this relationship remains unclear. Therefore, the aims of this scoping review were (1) to investigate the relationship between cricket participation, health and well-being and (ii) to identify the research gaps related to cricket, health and well-being.Methods and analysisDue to the broad nature of our research question and the large number of health outcomes assessed within the cricket literature and to facilitate identification of research gaps, a scoping review methodology was used. The methodology of this paper was informed by previous scoping review protocols and best practice methodological frameworks. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Web of Science and PEDro and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and ProQuest) will be systematically searched. Studies that assess a construct related to health and/or well-being in current and/or former cricketers from all ages and standards of play will be eligible. Two reviewers will independently screen full texts of identiﬁed studies for eligibility and will perform data extraction. Results will be presented in tabular and graphical forms and will be reported descriptively.Ethics and disseminationThis research is exempt from ethics approval due to the data being available through published and public available resources. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed sports and exercise medicine journal regardless of positive or negative findings. In addition, results will be disseminated through multiple platforms, including conference presentations and social media using multimedia resources (eg, infographics, animations, videos, podcasts and blogs), to engage stakeholder groups, including cricketers, cricket coaches, sporting bodies, sports medicine professionals and policy makers. There findings will inform clinical decision making, policy changes and future research agendas.

Dataset Information

How well does your massive transfusion protocol perform? A scoping review of quality indicators.

Publications

How well does your massive transfusion protocol perform? A scoping review of quality indicators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets