Assessment of the Nursing Quality Indicators for Reporting and Evaluation (NQuIRE) database using a data quality index.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Naik S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7647324 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeA newly developed brief measure of nursing facility (NF) resident self-reported quality of life (QOL) has been proposed for inclusion in a modified version of the minimum data set (MDS). There is considerable interest in determining whether it is possible to develop indicators of QOL that are more convenient and less expensive than direct, in-person interviews with residents.Design and methodsQOL interview data from 2,829 residents living in 101 NFs using a 14-item version of a longer instrument were merged with data from the MDS and the Online Survey and Certification Automated Record (OSCAR). Bivariate and multivariate hierarchical linear modeling were used to assess the association of QOL with potential resident and facility level indicators.ResultsResident and facility level indicators were associated with self-reported QOL in the expected direction. At the individual resident level, QOL is negatively associated with physical function, visual acuity, continence, being bedfast, depression, conflict in relationships, and positively associated with social engagement. At the facility level, QOL is negatively associated with citations for failing to accommodate resident needs or providing a clean, safe environment. The ratio of activities staff to residents is positively associated with QOL. This study did not find an association between QOL and either use of restraints or nurse staff levels. Approximately 9 percent of the total variance in self-reported QOL can be attributed to differences among facilities; 91 percent can be attributed to differences among residents. Resident level indicators explained about 4 percent of the variance attributable to differences among residents, and facility factors explained 49 percent of the variance attributable to differences among NFs. However, the different variables explained only 10 percent of the variance in self-reported QOL.ImplicationsA brief self-report measure of NF resident QOL is consistently associated with measures that can be constructed from extant data sources. However, the level of prediction possible from these data sources does not justify reliance on external indicators of resident QOL for policy purposes.
| S-EPMC1702527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the accuracy of nursing home self-report of major injury falls on the Minimum Data Set (MDS). DATA SOURCES:MDS assessments and Medicare claims, 2011-2015. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:We linked inpatient claims for major injury falls with MDS assessments. The proportion of claims-identified falls reported for each fall-related MDS item was calculated. Using multilevel modeling, we assessed patient and nursing home characteristics that may be predictive of poor reporting. We created a claims-based major injury fall rate for each nursing home and estimated its correlation with Nursing Home Compare (NHC) measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We identified 150,828 major injury falls in claims that occurred during nursing home residency. For the MDS item used by NHC, only 57.5 percent were reported. Reporting was higher for long-stay (62.9 percent) than short-stay (47.2 percent), and for white (59.0 percent) than nonwhite residents (46.4 percent). Adjusting for facility-level race differences, reporting was lower for nonwhite people than white people; holding constant patient race, having larger proportions of nonwhite people in a nursing home was associated with lower reporting. The correlation between fall rates based on claims vs the MDS was 0.22. CONCLUSIONS:The nursing home-reported data used for the NHC falls measure may be highly inaccurate.
| S-EPMC7080404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis manuscript describes a method for adjustment of nursing home quality indicators (QIs) defined using the Center for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) nursing home resident assessment system, the Minimum Data Set (MDS). QIs are intended to characterize quality of care delivered in a facility. Threats to the validity of the measurement of presumed quality of care include baseline resident health and functional status, pattern of comorbidities, and facility case mix. The goal of obtaining a valid facility-level estimate of true quality of care should include adjustment for resident- and facility-level sources of variability.MethodsWe present a practical and efficient method to achieve risk adjustment using restriction and indirect and direct standardization. We present information on validity by comparing QIs estimated with the new algorithm to one currently used by CMS.ResultsMore than half of the new QIs achieved a "Moderate" validation level.ConclusionsGiven the comprehensive approach and the positive findings to date, research using the new quality indicators is warranted to provide further evidence of their validity and utility and to encourage their use in quality improvement activities.
| S-EPMC2881673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo demonstrate the benefit of defining operational management units in nursing homes and computing quality indicators on these units as well as on the whole facility.DesignCalculation of adjusted Resident Assessment Instrument - Minimum Data Set 2.0 (RAI-MDS 2.0) quality indicators for: PRU05 (prevalence of residents with a stage 2-4 pressure ulcer), PAI0X (prevalence of residents with pain) and DRG01 (prevalence of residents receiving an antipsychotic with no diagnosis of psychosis), for quarterly assessments between 2007 and 2011 at unit and facility levels. Comparisons of these risk-adjusted quality indicators using statistical process control (control charts).SettingA representative sample of 30 urban nursing homes in the three Canadian Prairie Provinces.MeasurementsExplicit decision rules were developed and tested to determine whether the control charts demonstrated improving, worsening, unchanging or unclassifiable trends over the time period. Unit and facility performance were compared.ResultsIn 48.9% of the units studied, unit control chart performance indicated different changes in quality over the reporting period than did the facility chart. Examples are provided to illustrate that these differences lead to quite different quality interventions.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate the necessity of considering facility-level and unit-level measurement when calculating quality indicators derived from the RAI-MDS 2.0 data, and quite probably from any RAI measures.
| S-EPMC3927709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether reporting of hospital performance was associated with a change in quality indicators in Italian hospitals.Data sources/study settingNationwide Hospital Information System for 2006-2009.Study designWe performed a pre-post evaluation in Lazio (before and after disclosure of the Regional Outcome Evaluation Program P.Re.Val.E.) and a comparative evaluation versus Italian regions without comparable programs. We analyzed risk-adjusted proportions of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), hip fractures operated on within 48 hours, and cesarean deliveries.Data collection/extraction methodsUsing standardized ICD-9-CM coding algorithms, we selected 381,053 acute myocardial infarction patients, 250,712 hip fractures, and 1,736,970 women who had given birth.Principal findingsIn Lazio PCI within 48 hours changed from 22.49 to 29.43 percent following reporting of the P.Re.Val.E results (relative increase, 31 percent; p < .001). In the other regions this proportion increased from 22.48 to 27.09 percent during the same time period (relative increase, 21 percent; p < .001). Hip fractures operated on within 48 hours increased from 11.73 to 15.78 percent (relative increase, 34 percent; p < .001) in Lazio, and not in other regions (29.36 to 28.57 percent). Cesarean deliveries did not decrease in Lazio (34.57-35.30 percent), and only slightly decreased in the other regions (30.49-28.11 percent).ConclusionsReporting of performance data may have a positive but limited impact on quality improvement. The evaluation of quality indicators remains paramount for public accountability.
| S-EPMC3513610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveReal-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) have been paid more and more attention in recent years. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data (RWD) published between 2013 and 2021 and analyze the possible factors.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search in Medline and Embase through the OVID interface for cohort studies published from 2013 to 2021 on April 29, 2022. Studies aimed at comparing the effectiveness or safety of exposure factors in the real-world setting were included. The evaluation was based on the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Agreement for inclusion and evaluation was calculated using Cohen's kappa. Pearson chi-square test or Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze the possible factors, including the release of RECORD, journal IFs, and article citations. Bonferroni's correction was conducted for multiple comparisons. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to display the changes in report quality over time.Results187 articles were finally included. The mean ± SD of the percentage of adequately reported items in the 187 articles was 44.7 ± 14.3 with a range of 11.1-87%. Of 23 items, the adequate reporting rate of 10 items reached 50%, and the reporting rate of some vital items was inadequate. After Bonferroni's correction, the reporting of only one item significantly improved after the release of RECORD and there was no significant improvement in the overall report quality. For interrupted time series analysis, there were no significant changes in the slope (p = 0.42) and level (p = 0.12) of adequate reporting rate. The journal IFs and citations were respectively related to 2 areas and the former significantly higher in high-reporting quality articles.ConclusionThe endorsement of the RECORD cheklist was generally inadequate in cohort studies using RWD and has not improved in recent years. We encourage researchers to endorse relevant guidelines when utilizing RWD for research.
| S-EPMC10308622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDelphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice.Methodology and main findingThree electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978-2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility.ConclusionThe use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
| S-EPMC3111406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an essential tool for translating evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist assists to guide the reporting in guidelines. We used RIGHT to assess the reporting completeness and quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsWe searched the electronic databases Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) from January 1st, 2018 to December 1st, 2020 for guidelines on CRC. Websites of guideline development organizations were also searched. Two investigators assessed the reporting quality of the included guidelines, and calculated the numbers of guidelines that were compliant with each RIGHT checklist item and the mean proportions of reported items for each of the seven RIGHT checklist domains.ResultsTwenty-seven colorectal guidelines were included. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 71.0% for Basic information, 66.2% for Background, 45.9% for Evidence, 68.8% for Recommendations, 24.1% for Review and quality assurance, 33.3% for Funding and declaration and management of interests, and 40.7% for Other information.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of colorectal guidelines was moderate. A systematic use of the RIGHT checklist during the development process could improve the reporting quality of guidelines in the future.
| S-EPMC8350680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveLimited consumer use of health care report cards may be due to the large amount of information presented in report cards, which can be difficult to understand. These limitations may be overcome with summary measures. Our objective was to evaluate consumer response to summary measures in the setting of nursing homes.Data sources/study setting2005-2010 nursing home Minimum Data Set and Online Survey, Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) datasets.Study designIn December 2008, Medicare converted its nursing home report card to summary or star ratings. We test whether there was a change in consumer demand for nursing homes related to the nursing home's star rating after the information was released.Principal findingsThe star rating system was associated with a significant change in consumer demand for low- and high-scoring facilities. After the star-based rating system was released, 1-star facilities typically lost 8 percent of their market share and 5-star facilities gained over 6 percent of their market share.ConclusionsThe nursing home star rating system significantly affected consumer demand for high- and low-rated nursing homes. These results support the use of summary measures in report cards.
| S-EPMC4874944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS) 2.0 is designed to collect the minimum amount of data to guide care planning and monitoring for residents in long-term care settings. These data have been used to compute indicators of care quality. Use of the quality indicators to inform quality improvement initiatives is contingent upon the validity and reliability of the indicators. The purpose of this review was to systematically examine published and grey research reports in order to assess the state of the science regarding the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 Quality Indicators (QIs).MethodsWe systematically reviewed the evidence for the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 QIs. A comprehensive literature search identified relevant original research published, in English, prior to December 2008. Fourteen articles and one report examining the validity and/or reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 QIs were included.ResultsThe studies fell into two broad categories, those that examined individual quality indicators and those that examined multiple indicators. All studies were conducted in the United States and included from one to a total of 209 facilities. The number of residents included in the studies ranged from 109 to 5758. One study conducted under research conditions examined 38 chronic care QIs, of which strong evidence for the validity of 12 of the QIs was found. In response to these findings, the 12 QIs were recommended for public reporting purposes. However, a number of observational studies (n = 13), conducted in "real world" conditions, have tested the validity and/or reliability of individual QIs, with mixed results. Ten QIs have been studied in this manner, including falls, depression, depression without treatment, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections, weight loss, bedfast, restraint, pressure ulcer, and pain. These studies have revealed the potential for systematic bias in reporting, with under-reporting of some indicators and over-reporting of others.ConclusionEvidence for the reliability and validity of the RAI-MDS QIs remains inconclusive. The QIs provide a useful tool for quality monitoring and to inform quality improvement programs and initiatives. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the QI results and other sources of evidence of the quality of care processes should be considered in conjunction with QI results.
| S-EPMC2914032 | biostudies-literature