Identifying sources of error and selecting quality indicators for point of care testing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Point of Care Testing (POCT) is a rapidly expanding area of clinical laboratory testing and quality assurance is an important area of focus. Quality indicators (QIs) are a quality management system tool that monitors aspects of the testing process to help meet the challenges associated with maintaining high quality patient safety given the growth in POCT. Alberta aims to formalize the development and use of QIs for POCT.Design
and Methods: Potential QIs were identified by reviewing both the current standards and guidelines for QIs in POCT, and the research regarding quality and sources of error in POCT. Quality practices and potential sources of error in POCT were identified by: 1) a Canadian national survey on POCT, and 2) direct observation in two local POCT programs.Results
A proposed selection of QIs in POCT were identified by incorporating the results from these investigations, while considering the unique characteristics of POCT. These QIs monitor the preanalytical, analytical, and post-analytical phases of testing, and support processes.Conclusions
As POCT volumes and test menu expands, QIs will be a vital tool in monitoring error and maintaining high quality of results. Adoption of formal QIs will support continuous quality improvement and improved patient care.
SUBMITTER: Brun M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8042172 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:SignificanceQuality 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.PurposeThis 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).MethodsPatient 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.ResultsOverall, 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC7774814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-centred quality indicators allow health care systems to monitor and evaluate patient-centred care practices and identify gaps in health care quality. Our objective was to determine whether Canadian provinces and territories measure patient-centred care, identify patient-centred quality indicators currently being used and compare patient-centred care practices and measurement in Canada to those of health care systems in other countries. METHODS:An online survey was developed to collect data on demographic characteristics, patient-centred care practices, and indicators used at quality improvement organizations and health care authorities. The survey was conducted with quality improvement leads in Canada and 4 other countries. Content analysis methods were used to analyze and report the data. Patient-centred quality indicators were identified and categorized according to the Donabedian framework (structure, process, outcome). RESULTS:The survey had a response rate of 47/67 (70%) and a completion rate of 58/60 (97%). We obtained completed surveys from 12 of the 13 provinces and territories in Canada. Respondents from most provinces indicated their organization used patient-centred care measures to inform practices. Respondents in only 4 provinces/territories reported using patient-centred quality indicators, for a total of 61 unique indicators. Most indicators used across Canada assessed aspects of care related to the Donabedian components of process and outcome. Findings for Canada were comparable to those for Sweden, England, Australia and New Zealand, where many measures are still in development. INTERPRETATION:This study provided greater insight into patient-centred care measurement across Canada, Sweden, England, Australia and New Zealand and helped us to identify patient-centred quality indicators currently in use. These results will inform the development of a standard set of patient-centred quality indicators for implementation by health care organizations to improve the quality of health care.
| S-EPMC6298869 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this article is to illustrate the application of an evidence-based, structured performance measurement methodology to identify, prioritize, and (when appropriate) generate new measures of health care quality, using primary care as a case example. Primary health care is central to the health care system and health of the American public; thus, ensuring high quality is essential. Due to its complexity, ensuring high-quality primary care requires measurement frameworks that can assess the quality of the infrastructure, workforce configurations, and processes available. This paper describes the use of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) to compile a targeted set of such measures, prioritized according to their contribution and value to primary care.MethodsWe adapted ProMES to select and rank existing primary care measures according to value to the primary care clinic. Nine subject matter experts (SMEs) consisting of clinicians, hospital leaders and national policymakers participated in facilitated expert elicitation sessions to identify objectives of performance, corresponding measures, and priority rankings.ResultsThe SMEs identified three fundamental objectives: access, patient-health care team partnerships, and technical quality. The SMEs also selected sixteen performance indicators from the 44 pre-vetted, currently existing measures from three different data sources for primary care. One indicator, Team 2-Day Post Discharge Contact Ratio, was selected as an indicator of both team partnerships and technical quality. Indicators were prioritized according to value using the contingency functions developed by the SMEs.ConclusionOur article provides an actionable guide to applying ProMES, which can be adapted to the needs of various industries, including measure selection and modification from existing data sources, and proposing new measures. Future work should address both logistical considerations (e.g., data capture, common data/programming language) and lingering measurement challenges, such as operationalizating measures to be meaningful and interpretable across health care settings.
| S-EPMC8765671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe error rate in the total testing process (TTP) of point-of-care (POC) glucose measurement remains high although a total quality management system has been applied. Quality indicators (QIs) in the TTP of glucose meter were established via risk assessment. Their two-year Six Sigma values were reviewed for quality improvement.DesignThe TTP of POC glucose measurement was mapped to identify risks in key steps. The risks were assessed for their frequency and severity of impact on patient safety. Whenever possible, measurable data from the data management system and other sources was collected to establish QIs for risk monitoring. Average Six Sigma value of each QI in the last two years was calculated for acceptance and for determining corrective action.Results29 risks were identified in eight key steps of the TTP. Eight QIs were established for monitoring six risks and three QIs for two accepted risks were established for improving operator testing skill. The QIs had a good coverage to key steps. Two, five and four QIs showed Six Sigma values <3, 3-4 and >4 respectively. Six Sigma values of two QIs related to quality control (QC) testing were improved by using meters with accurate QC sample loading.ConclusionsThe establishment of QIs for glucose measurement by risk assessment with measurable data from the data management system and on Six sigma scale was effective, efficient, and manageable. Most of QIs' Six Sigma values were between 3 and 5, which could be improved by using upgraded meters.
| S-EPMC8042413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTo the best of our knowledge, no quality indicators (QIs) for primary care provided by local clinics have yet been developed in Japan. We aimed to develop valid and applicable QIs to evaluate primary care in Japan.MethodsTwo focus group interviews were held to identify conceptual categories. Existing indicators for these categories were identified, and initial sets of potential QIs were developed. Using a modified Delphi appropriateness method, a multidisciplinary expert panel then developed and selected the QIs. Feasibility and applicability of these QIs were then confirmed in pilot testing at six local clinics in Hokkaido, Japan. To determine patient acceptance of these quality improvement activities, the survey asked two questions, "Do you think it is preferable that the patients of this clinic be periodically surveyed?" and "Do you think it is preferable that this clinic periodically undergo an external quality review by an independent body?"ResultsSeven categories emerged from the focus group discussions as key components of primary care in Japan. Thirty-nine QIs under five categories (Comprehensive care/Standardized care, Access, Communication, Co-ordination, and Understanding of patient background) were finally selected and named the QIs for Primary Care Practice in Japan. In pilot testing at six primary care clinics in 2015, 65.4% of patients answered favorably to the idea that clinics should conduct regular patient surveys, and 71.8% answered favorably to the idea that clinics should undergo periodic external quality review by an independent body.ConclusionsWe developed QIs to assess primary care services provided by clinics in Japan, for the first time. Although further refinement is required, establishment of these QIs is the first step in quality improvement for primary care practices in Japan.
| S-EPMC7889691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed at evaluating face and content validity, feasibility and reliability of process quality indicators developed previously in the United States or other countries. The indicators can be used to evaluate care and services for vulnerable older adults affected by cognitive impairment or dementia within an integrated service system in Quebec, Canada.MethodsA total of 33 clinical experts from three major urban centres in Quebec formed a panel representing two medical specialties (family medicine, geriatrics) and seven health or social services specialties (nursing, occupational therapy, psychology, neuropsychology, pharmacy, nutrition, social work), from primary or secondary levels of care, including long-term care. A modified version of the RAND(R)/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) appropriateness method, a two-round Delphi panel, was used to assess face and content validity of process quality indicators. The appropriateness of indicators was evaluated according to a) agreement of the panel with three criteria, defined as a median rating of 7-9 on a nine-point rating scale, and b) agreement among panellists, judged by the statistical measure of the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry. Feasibility of quality assessment and reliability of appropriate indicators were then evaluated within a pilot study on 29 patients affected by cognitive impairment or dementia. For measurable indicators the inter-observer reliability was calculated with the Kappa statistic.ResultsInitially, 82 indicators for care of vulnerable older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia were submitted to the panellists. Of those, 72 (88%) were accepted after two rounds. Among 29 patients for whom medical files of the preceding two years were evaluated, 63 (88%) of these indicators were considered applicable at least once, for at least one patient. Only 22 indicators were considered applicable at least once for ten or more out of 29 patients. Four indicators could be measured with the help of a validated questionnaire on patient satisfaction. Inter-observer reliability was moderate (Kappa = 0.57).ConclusionA multidisciplinary panel of experts judged a large majority of the initial indicators valid for use in integrated care systems for vulnerable older adults in Quebec, Canada. Most of these indicators can be measured using patient files or patient or caregiver interviews and reliability of assessment from patient-files is moderate.
| S-EPMC2225401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The performance of Primary Care Trusts in England is assessed and published using a number of different performance indicators. Our study has two broad purposes. Firstly, to find out whether pairs of indicators that purport to measure similar aspects of quality are correlated (as would be expected if they are both valid measures of the same construct). Secondly, we wanted to find out whether broad (global) indicators correlated with any particular features of Primary Care Trusts, such as expenditure per capita. METHODS: Cross sectional quantitative analysis using data from six 2004/05 PCT performance indicators for 303 English Primary Care Trusts from four sources in the public domain: Star Rating, aggregated Quality and Outcomes Framework scores, Dr Foster mortality index, Dr Foster equity index (heart by-pass and hip replacements), NHS Litigation Authority Risk Management standards and Patient Satisfaction scores from the Star Ratings. Forward stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine the effect of Primary Care Trust characteristics on performance. RESULTS: Star Rating and Quality and Outcomes Framework total, both summary measures of global quality, were not correlated with each other (F = 0.66, p = 0.57). There were however positive correlations between Quality and Outcomes Framework total and patient satisfaction (r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and between screening/'additional services' indicators on the Star Ratings and Quality and Outcomes Framework (F = 24, p < 0.001). There was no correlation between different measures of access to services. Likewise we found no relationship between either Star Rating or Litigation Authority Standards and hospital mortality (F = 0.61, p = 0.61; F = 0.31, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Performance assessment in healthcare remains on the Government's agenda, with new core and developmental standards set to replace the Star Ratings in 2006. Yet the results of this analysis provide little evidence that the current indicators have sufficient construct validity to measure the underlying concept of quality, except when the specific area of screening is considered.
| S-EPMC1526428 | biostudies-other
Project description:In line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the target for achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC), state level initiatives to promote health with "no-one left behind" are underway in India. In Kerala, reforms under the flagship Aardram mission include upgradation of Primary Health Centres (PHCs) to Family Health Centres (FHCs, similar to the national model of health and wellness centres (HWCs)), with the proactive provision of a package of primary care services for the population in an administrative area. We report on a component of Aardram's monitoring and evaluation framework for primary health care, where tracer input, output, and outcome indicators were selected using a modified Delphi process and field tested. A conceptual framework and indicator inventory were developed drawing upon literature review and stakeholder consultations, followed by mapping of manual registers currently used in PHCs to identify sources of data and processes of monitoring. The indicator inventory was reduced to a list using a modified Delphi method, followed by facility-level field testing across three districts. The modified Delphi comprised 25 participants in two rounds, who brought the list down to 23 approved and 12 recommended indicators. Three types of challenges in monitoring indicators were identified: appropriateness of indicators relative to local use, lack of clarity or procedural differences among those doing the reporting, and validity of data. Further field-testing of indicators, as well as the revision or removal of some may be required to support ongoing health systems reform, learning, monitoring and evaluation.
| S-EPMC7398520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe diversity and complexity of invertebrate communities usually result in their exclusion from conservation activities. Here we provide a step process for assessing predominantly ground-dwelling Afrotemperate forest invertebrates' (earthworms, centipedes, millipedes, ants, molluscs) potential as surrogates for conservation and indicators for monitoring. We also evaluated sampling methods (soil and litter samples, pitfall traps, active searching quadrats and tree beating) and temporal (seasonal) effects.Methodology/principal findingsLack of congruence of species richness across taxa indicated poor surrogacy potential for any of the focus taxa. Based on abundance and richness, seasonal stability, and ease of sampling, molluscs were the most appropriate taxon for use in monitoring of disturbance impacts. Mollusc richness was highest in March (Antipodal late summer wet season). The most effective and efficient methods were active searching quadrats and searching litter samples. We tested the effectiveness of molluscs as indicators for monitoring by contrasting species richness and community structure in burned relative to unburned forests. Both species richness and community structure changed significantly with burning. Some mollusc species (e.g. Macroptychia africana) showed marked negative responses to burning, and these species have potential for use as indicators.Conclusions/significanceDespite habitat type (i.e., Afrotemperate forest) being constant, species richness and community structure varied across forest patches. Therefore, in conservation planning, setting targets for coarse filter features (e.g., habitat type) requires fine filter features (e.g., localities for individual species). This is especially true for limited mobility taxa such as those studied here. Molluscs have high potential for indicators for monitoring, and this requires broader study.
| S-EPMC2817749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite an increasing importance of home care, quality assurance in this healthcare sector in Switzerland is hardly established. In 2010, Swiss home care quality indicators (QIs) based on the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) were developed. However, these QIs have not been revised since, although internationally new RAI-HC QIs have emerged. The objective of this study was to assess the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs to measure quality of home care in Switzerland from a public health and healthcare providers' perspective.MethodsFirst, the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs, identified in a recent systematic review, was assessed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method taking into account indicators' public health relevance, potential of influence, and comprehensibility. Second, the QIs selected by the experts were afterwards rated regarding their relevance, potential of influence, and practicability from a healthcare providers' perspective in focus groups with home care nurses based on the Nominal-Group-Technique. Data were analyzed using median scores and the Disagreement Index.Results18 of 43 RAI-HC QIs were rated appropriate by the experts from a public health perspective. The 18 QIs cover clinical, psychosocial, functional and service use aspects. Seven of the 18 QIs were subsequently rated appropriate by home care nurses from a healthcare providers' perspective. The focus of these QIs is narrow, because three of seven QIs are pain-related. From both perspectives, the majority of RAI-HC QIs were rated inappropriate because of insufficient potential of influence, with healthcare providers rating them more critically.ConclusionsThe study shows that the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs differs according to the stakeholder perspective and the intended use of QIs. The findings of this study can guide policy-makers and home care organizations on selecting QIs and to critically reflect on their appropriate use.
| S-EPMC7773259 | biostudies-literature