Dataset Information

An Environmental Scan and Evaluation of Home Dialysis Quality Indicators Currently Used in Canada

ABSTRACT:

Background:

Quality indicators are important tools to measure and ultimately improve the quality of care provided. Performance measurement may be particularly helpful to grow disciplines that are underutilized and cost-effective, such as home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis).

Objective:

To identify and catalog home dialysis quality indicators currently used in Canada, as well as to evaluate these indicators as a starting point for future collaboration and standardization of quality indicators across Canada.

Design:

An environmental scan of quality indicators from provincial organizations, quality organizations, and stakeholders.

Setting:

Sixteen-member pan-Canadian panel with expertise in both nephrology and quality improvement.

Patients:

Our environmental scan included indicators relevant to patients on home dialysis.

Measurements:

We classified existing indicators based on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Donabedian frameworks.

Methods:

To evaluate the indicators, a 6-person subcommittee conducted a modified version of the Delphi consensus technique based on the American College of Physicians/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. We shared these consensus ratings with the entire 16-member panel for further examination. We rated items from 1 to 9 on 6 domains (1-3 does not meet criteria to 7-9 meets criteria) as well as a global final rating (1-3 unnecessary to 7-9 necessary) to distinguish high-quality from low-quality indicators.

Results:

Overall, we identified 40 quality indicators across 7 provinces, with 22 (55%) rated as “necessary” to distinguish high quality from poor quality care. Ten indicators were measured by more than 1 province, and 5 of these indicators were rated as necessary (home dialysis prevalence, home dialysis incidence, anemia target achievement, rates of peritonitis associated with peritoneal dialysis, and home dialysis attrition). None of these indicators captured the IOM domains of timely, patient-centered, or equitable care.

Limitations:

The environmental scan is a nonexhaustive list of quality indicators in Canada. The panel also lacked representation from patients, administrators, and allied health professionals.

Conclusions:

These results provide Canadian home dialysis programs with a starting point on how to measure quality of care along with the current gaps. This work is an initial and necessary step toward future collaboration and standardization of quality indicators across Canada, so that home dialysis programs can access a smaller number of highly rated balanced indicators to motivate and support patient-centered quality improvement initiatives.

SUBMITTER: Dubrofsky L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7734484 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuality indicators can be used to identify gaps in care and drive frontline improvement activities. These efforts are important to prevent adverse events in the increasing number of ambulatory patients with advanced kidney disease in Canada, but it is unclear what indicators exist and the components of health care quality they measure.ObjectiveWe sought to identify, categorize, and evaluate quality indicators currently in use across Canada for ambulatory patients with advanced kidney disease.DesignEnvironmental scan of quality indicators currently being collected by various organizations.SettingWe assembled a 16-member group from across Canada with expertise in nephrology and quality improvement.PatientsOur scan included indicators relevant to patients with chronic kidney disease in ambulatory care clinics.MeasurementsWe categorized the identified quality indicators using the Institute of Medicine and Donabedian frameworks.MethodsA 4-member panel used a modified Delphi process to evaluate the indicators found during the environmental scan using the American College of Physicians/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. The ratings were then shared with the full panel for further comments and approval.ResultsThe environmental scan found 28 quality indicators across 7 provinces, with 8 (29%) rated as "necessary" to distinguish high-quality from poor-quality care. Of these 8 indicators, 3 were measured by more than 1 province (% of patients on a statin, number of patients receiving a preemptive transplant, and estimated glomerular filtration rate at dialysis start); no indicator was used by more than 2 provinces. None of the indicators rated as necessary measured timely or equitable care, nor did we identify any measures that assessed the setting in which care occurs (ie, structure measures).LimitationsOur list cannot be considered as an exhaustive list of available quality indicators at hand in Canada. Our work focused on quality indicators for nephrology providers and programs, and not indicators that can be applied across primary and specialty providers. We also focused on indicator constructs and not the detailed definitions or their application. Last, our panel does not represent the views of other important stakeholders.ConclusionsOur environmental scan provides a snapshot of the scope of quality indicators for ambulatory patients with advanced kidney disease in Canada. This catalog should inform indicator selection and the development of new indicators based on the identified gaps, as well as motivate increased pan-Canadian collaboration on quality measurement and improvement.Trial registrationNot applicable as this article is not a systematic review, nor does it report results of a health intervention on human participants.

Project description:BackgroundKidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for an individual requiring kidney replacement therapy, resulting in improved survival and quality of life while costing the health care system less than maintenance dialysis. Achieving and maintaining a kidney transplant requires extensive coordination of several different health care services. To improve the quality of kidney transplant care, quality metrics or indicators that encompass all aspects of the individual's journey to transplant should be measured in a standardized fashion.ObjectiveTo identify, categorize, and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used across Canada.DesignAn environmental scan of quality indicators being used by kidney organizations and programs.SettingA 16-member volunteer pan-Canadian panel with expertise in nephrology, transplant, and quality improvement.SampleTransplant programs, as well as provincial transplant and kidney agencies across Canada.MethodsIndicators were first categorized based on the period of transplant care and then using the Institute of Medicine and Donabedian frameworks. A 4-member subcommittee rated each indicator using a modified version of the Delphi consensus technique based on the American College of Physician/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. Consensus ratings were subsequently shared with the entire 16-member panel for additional comments.ResultsWe identified 46 measures related to transplant care across 7 Canadian provinces (9 referral and evaluation, 9 waitlist activity and outcomes, 6 hospitalization for transplant surgery, 12 posttransplant care, 6 organ utilization, 4 living donor). We rated 24 indicators (52%) as necessary to distinguish high-quality from low-quality care, most of which measured effective (n = 10) or efficient (n = 6) care. Only 7 (15%) of 46 indicators evaluated person-centered or equitable care. Fourteen common indicators were measured by 5 of 7 provinces, 10 of which were deemed "necessary," measuring safe (n = 2), effective (n = 5), efficient (n = 2), and equitable (n = 1) care.LimitationsThe panel lacked patient and allied health representation.ConclusionsThere are a large number of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used in Canada, some of which are common across provinces and focus primarily on measuring effective care. Person-centered and equitable care indicators were lacking, and only half of these indicators were deemed "necessary" for quality improvement. Our results should complement ongoing work to achieve national consensus on the standardization of quality indicators in kidney transplantation.

Project description:Background and objectivesData on racial disparities in home dialysis utilization and outcomes are lacking in Canada, where health care is universally available.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe studied patients starting maintenance dialysis between 1996 and 2012 in the Canadian Organ Replacement Register, stratified by race: white, Asian, black, Aboriginal, Indian subcontinent, and other. The association between race and treatment with home dialysis was examined using generalized linear models. Secondary outcomes assessed racial differences in all-cause mortality and technique failure using a Fine and Gray competing risk model.Results66,600 patients initiated chronic dialysis between 1996 and 2012. Compared with whites (n=46,092), treatment with home dialysis was lower among Aboriginals (n=3866; adjusted relative risk, RR, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.66 to 0.76) and higher in Asians (n=4157; adjusted RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.35) and others (n=2170; adjusted RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.20) but similar in blacks (n=2143) and subcontinent Indians (n=2809). Black (adjusted hazard ratio, HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.48) and Aboriginal (adjusted HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.33) patients treated with peritoneal dialysis had a significantly higher adjusted risk of technique failure compared with whites, whereas Asians had a lower risk (adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.99). In patients on peritoneal dialysis, the risk of death was significantly lower in Asians (adjusted HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92), blacks (adjusted HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85), and others (adjusted HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92) but higher in Aboriginals (adjusted HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.32) compared with whites. Among patients on home hemodialysis, no significant racial differences in patient and technique survival were observed, which may be limited by the low number of events among each subgroups.ConclusionsWith the exception of Aboriginals, all racial minority groups in Canada were as likely to be treated with home dialysis compared with whites. However, significant racial differences exist in outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundColposcopy is a key part of cervical cancer control. As cervical cancer screening and prevention strategies evolve, monitoring colposcopy performance will become even more critical. In the present paper, we describe population-based colposcopy quality indicators that are recommended for ongoing measurement by cervical cancer screening programs in Canada.MethodsThe Pan-Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Network established a multidisciplinary expert working group to identify population-based colposcopy quality indicators. A systematic literature review was conducted to ascertain existing population and program-level colposcopy quality indicators. A systems-level cervical cancer screening pathway describing each step from an abnormal screening test, to colposcopy, and back to screening was developed. Indicators from the literature were assigned a place on the pathway to ensure that all steps were measured. A prioritization matrix scoring system was used to score each indicator based on predetermined criteria. Proposed colposcopy quality indicators were shared with provincial and territorial screening programs and subsequently revised.ResultsThe 10 population-based colposcopy quality indicators identified as priorities were colposcopy uptake, histologic investigation (biopsy) rate, colposcopy referral rate, failure to attend colposcopy, treatment frequency in women 18-24 years of age, re-treatment proportion, colposcopy exit-test proportion, histologic investigation (biopsy) frequency after low-grade Pap test results, length of colposcopy episode of care, and operating room treatment rate. Two descriptive indicators were also identified: colposcopist volume and number of colposcopists per capita.SummaryHigh-quality colposcopy services are an essential component of provincial cervical cancer screening programs. The proposed quality and descriptive indicators will permit colposcopy outcomes to be compared between provinces and across Canada so as to identify opportunities for improving colposcopy services.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify, characterise and map the existing knowledge about programmes that provide immunisation support to Canadians and barriers and facilitators to their delivery.DesignScoping review and environmental scan.IntroductionVaccine hesitancy may be associated with unmet support needs of individuals. Immunisation support programmes that provide multicomponent approaches can improve vaccine confidence and equitable access.Inclusion criteriaCanadian programmes that focus on providing information about immunisation for the general public, but excluding articles targeting health professionals. The primary concept involves mapping the characteristics of programmes and our secondary concept examines barriers and facilitators to programme delivery.MethodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology guided this review, reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A search strategy was developed and translated for six databases in November 2021 (updated October 2022). Unpublished literature was identified through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Grey Matters checklist and other relevant sources. Stakeholders (n=124) from Canadian regional health authorities were also contacted by email for publicly accessible information. Two independent raters screened and extracted data from identified material. Results are presented in tabular form.ResultsThe search strategy and environmental scan resulted in 15 287 sources. A total of 161 full-text sources were reviewed after applying eligibility criteria, resulting in 50 articles. Programmes were delivered in multiple Canadian provinces, focusing on various vaccine types. All programmes aimed to increase vaccine uptake and were mostly provided in person. Multidisciplinary delivery teams based on collaborations among multiple entities were credited as a facilitator to programme delivery across settings. Limitations on programme resources, attitudes of programme staff and participants, and systems organisation were identified as barriers to delivery.ConclusionsThis review highlighted characteristics of immunisation support programmes across various settings and described multiple facilitators and barriers. These findings can inform future interventions that aim to support Canadians in making decisions about immunisation.