Dataset Information

Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care.

ABSTRACT:

Significance

Quality refractive error care is essential for reducing vision impairment. Quality indicators and standardized approaches for assessing the quality of refractive error care need to be established.

Purpose

This study aimed to develop a set of indicators for assessing the quality of refractive error care and test their applicability in a real-world setting using unannounced standardized patients (USPs).

Methods

Patient outcomes and three quality of refractive error care (Q.REC) indicators (1, optimally prescribed spectacles; 2, adequately prescribed spectacles; 3, vector dioptric distance) were developed using existing literature, refraction training standards, and consulting educators. Twenty-one USPs with various refractive errors were trained to visit optical stores across Vietnam to have a refraction, observe techniques, and order spectacles. Spectacles were assessed against each Q.REC indicator and tested for associations with vision and comfort.

Results

Overall, 44.1% (184/417) of spectacles provided good vision and comfort. Of the spectacles that met Q.REC indicators 1 and 2, 62.5 and 54.9%, respectively, provided both good vision and comfort. Optimally prescribed spectacles (indicator 1) were significantly more likely to provide good vision and comfort independently compared with spectacles that did not meet any indicator (good vision: 94.6 vs. 85.0%, P = .01; comfortable: 66.1 vs. 36.3%, P < .01). Adequately prescribed spectacles (indicator 2) were more likely to provide good comfort compared with spectacles not meeting any indicator (57.7 vs. 36.3%, P < .01); however, vision outcomes were not significantly different (85.9 vs. 85.0%, P = .90). Good vision was associated with a lower mean vector dioptric distance (P < .01) but not with comfort (P = .52).

Conclusions

The optimally prescribed spectacles indicator is a promising approach for assessing the quality of refractive error care without additional assessments of vision and comfort. Using USPs is a practical approach and could be used as a standardized method for evaluating the quality of refractive error care.

SUBMITTER: Lee L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7774814 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care.

Lee Ling L Burnett Anthea M AM D'Esposito Fabrizio F Fricke Tim T Nguyen Long Tien LT Vuong Duong Anh DA Nguyen Hien Thi Thu HTT Yu Mitasha M Nguyen Ngoc Viet My NVM Huynh Ly Phuong LP Ho Suit May SM

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry 20210101 1

<h4>Significance</h4>Quality refractive error care is essential for reducing vision impairment. Quality indicators and standardized approaches for assessing the quality of refractive error care need to be established.<h4>Purpose</h4>This study aimed to develop a set of indicators for assessing the quality of refractive error care and test their applicability in a real-world setting using unannounced standardized patients (USPs).<h4>Methods</h4>Patient outcomes and three quality of refractive err ...[more]

PMID: 33394928

Similar Datasets

Project description:Birth centres are described as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth in a home-like environment assisted by midwives and maternity care assistants. If complications arise or threaten, the woman is referred to a maternity unit of a hospital where an obstetrician will take over responsibility. In the last decade, a number of new birth centres have been established in the Netherlands, based on the assumption that birth centres provide better quality of care since they offer a better opportunity for more integrated care than the existing system with independent primary and secondary care providers. At present, there is no evidence for this assumption. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to present evidence-based recommendations for organization and functioning of future birth centres in the Netherlands. A necessary first step in this evaluation is the development of indicators for measuring the quality of the care delivered in birth centres in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to identify a comprehensive set of structure and process indicators to assess quality of birth centre care.We used mixed methods to develop a set of structure and process quality indicators for evaluating birth centre care. Beginning with a literature review, we developed an exhaustive list of determinants. We then used a Delphi study to narrow this list, calling on experts to rate the determinants for relevance and feasibility. A multidisciplinary expert panel of 63 experts, directly or indirectly involved with birth centre care, was invited to participate.A panel of 42 experts completed two Delphi rounds rating determinants of the quality of birth centre care based on their relevance (to the setting) and feasibility (of use). A set of 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators was identified to assess the quality of birth centre care in the Netherlands.We identified 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators concerning birth centre care. This set will be validated during the evaluation of birth centres in the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

Project description:IntroductionThere are 161 million people living with vision impairment, due to uncorrected refractive errors. A further 510 million people are living with near-vision impairment. There is a need for clearly defined indicators that capture the quality of refractive error service outputs and outcomes and provide insights to shape, change and stimulate action. This study aims to evaluate the quality of refractive error care (Q.REC) in Cambodia, Malaysia and Pakistan, by using unannounced standardised patients (USPs) to identify the proportion of prescribed and dispensed spectacles appropriate for people's refractive error needs and pinpoint/detail opportunities for quality improvement.Method and analysisA cross-sectional Q.REC study will be conducted in randomly selected optical services in Cambodia (180 services, 900 USP visits), the Klang Valley in Malaysia (66 services, 198 USP visits) and in Jhang, Sahiwal and Khanewal districts of Punjab region/state in Pakistan (64 services, 256 USP visits). USPs will receive baseline refractions by three skilled study optometrists/refractionists trained in the Q.REC protocol. USPs will then visit individual optical services, undergo a refraction, purchase spectacles or lenses (if recommended) and record observations about which elements of a refraction and dispensing were conducted. The study optometrist/refractionist will assess each pair of dispensed spectacles by examining the USP's aided visual acuity and visual comfort at distance and/or near and compare the lens prescription to the averaged baseline refraction.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC210102), the National Ethics Committee for Health Research in Cambodia (043 NECHR), National Medical Research Registry and the Medical Research and Ethics Committee (NMRR-21-689-59279) in Malaysia and the College of Ophthalmology & Allied Vision Sciences Ethical Review Board (COAVS 545/2021) in Pakistan. Written informed consent will be obtained from USPs. Service owners will have the opportunity to opt-out verbally or in writing. Results will be disseminated locally through workshops including the relevant local ministry of health personnel and stakeholders, published in peer-reviewed publications and presented at national and international conferences.

Project description:Reporting the results of quality indicators can narrow the gap in the quality of care between hospitals. While most studies rely on outcome indicators, they may not accurately measure the quality of care. Process indicators are not only strongly associated with treatment outcomes, but are also more sensitive to whether patients are treated accurately, enabling timely intervention. Our study aims to investigate whether process indicators provide a more reasonable assessment of hospital quality of care compared to outcome indicators. Data were sourced from the Specific Disease Medical Service Quality Management and Control System in China. A total of 113,942 patients with breast cancer treated in 298 hospitals between January 2019 and April 2023 were included in this retrospective study. The rankability of 11 process indicators was calculated and used as a weight to create a new composite indicator. The composite indicators and outcome measures were compared using the O/E ratio categories. Finally, in order to determine the impact of different years on the results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using bootstrap sampling. The rankability ( ρ ) values of the eleven process indicators showed significant differences, with the highest ρ value for preoperative cytological or histological examination before surgery (0.919). The ρ value for the outcome indicator was 0.011. The rankability-weighting method yielded a comprehensive score ( ρ = 0.883). The comparison with categorical results of the outcome indicator has different performance classifications for 113 hospitals (37.92%) for composite scores and 140 (46.98%) for preoperative cytological or histological examinationbefore surgery. Process indicators are more suitable than outcome indicators for assessing the quality of breast cancer care in hospitals. Healthcare providers can use process indicators to identify specific areas for improvement, thereby driving continuous quality improvement efforts.

Dataset Information

Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care.

Significance

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets