Development of Population-Based Cancer Indicators and a Measurement of Cancer Care Continuum Using a Modified Delphi Method.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rajaguru V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8508364 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of this study was to develop a core set of indicators that could be used for measuring and monitoring the performance of primary health care organizations' capacity and strategies for enhancing equity-oriented care.Indicators were constructed based on a review of the literature and a thematic analysis of interview data with patients and staff (n = 114) using procedures for qualitatively derived data. We used a modified Delphi process where the indicators were circulated to staff at the Health Centers who served as participants (n = 63) over two rounds. Indicators were considered part of a priority set of health equity indicators if they received an overall importance rating of>8.0, on a scale of 1-9, where a higher score meant more importance.Seventeen indicators make up the priority set. Items were eliminated because they were rated as low importance (<8.0) in both rounds and were either redundant or more than one participant commented that taking action on the indicator was highly unlikely. In order to achieve health care equity, performance at the organizational level is as important as assessing the performance of staff. Two of the highest rated "treatment" or processes of care indicators reflects the need for culturally safe and trauma and violence-informed care. There are four indicators that can be used to measure outcomes which can be directly attributable to equity responsive primary health care.These indicators and subsequent development of items can be used to measure equity in the domains of treatment and outcomes. These areas represent targets for higher performance in relation to equity for organizations (e.g., funding allocations to ongoing training in equity-oriented care provision) and providers (e.g., reflexive practice, skill in working with the health effects of trauma).
| S-EPMC4257722 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop prioritized cancer indicators and measure the population-based monitoring of the entire life cycle of cancer care, guiding the improvement of care delivery systems.MethodsScoping review was performed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. Electronic databases were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, RISS, KISS, and KoreaMed. The searches were limited to articles published in English between 2010 and 2020. No restrictions were applied regarding the publication status or country of origin, and all study designs were included. Gray literature was used to broaden the search's scope, identify new recommendations, need to be in connect with subject experts, and explore pertinent websites. The process and selected indicators were analyzed based on their frequency distribution and percentage.ResultsThe literature search yielded 6,202 works. In addition, national and international cancer guidelines were obtained from official database reports. A total of 35 articles and 20 reports regarding cancer indicators were finally selected for data synthesis. Based on them, 254 core sets of cancer indicators were identified. The selected indicators were classified into six domains based on the continuum of cancer care and survivor's life cycle, namely, primary prevention (61, 24.0%), secondary prevention (46, 18.1%), treatment (85, 33.5%), quality of care (33, 13.0%), survivor management (33, 13.0%), and end-of-life care (14, 5.5%).ConclusionThere is a growing interest in developing specific areas of cancer care. Cancer indicators can help organizations, care providers, and patients strive for optimal care outcomes. The identified indicators could guide future innovations by identifying weaknesses in cancer prevention and management.
| S-EPMC9614426 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is an ongoing discussion on the rising CS rate worldwide. Suboptimal guideline adherence may be an important contributor to this rise. Before improvement of care can be established, optimal CS care in different settings has to be defined. This study aimed to develop and measure quality indicators to determine guideline adherence and identify target groups for improvement of care with direct effect on caesarean section (CS) rates.MethodEighteen obstetricians and midwives participated in an expert panel for systematic CS quality indicator development according to the RAND-modified Delphi method. A multi-center study was performed and medical charts of 1024 women with a CS and a stratified and weighted randomly selected group of 1036 women with a vaginal delivery were analysed. Quality indicator frequency and adherence were scored in 2060 women with a CS or vaginal delivery.ResultsThe expert panel developed 16 indicators on planned CS and 11 indicators on unplanned CS. Indicator adherence was calculated, defined as the number of women in a specific obstetrical situation in which care was performed as recommended in both planned and unplanned CS settings. The most frequently occurring obstetrical situations with low indicator adherence were: 1) suspected fetal distress (frequency 17%, adherence 46%), 2) non-progressive labour (frequency 12%, CS performed too early in over 75%), 3) continuous support during labour (frequency 88%, adherence 37%) and 4) previous CS (frequency 12%), with adequate counselling in 15%.ConclusionsWe identified four concrete target groups for improvement of obstetrical care, which can be used as a starting point to reduce CS rates worldwide.
| S-EPMC4718610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-quality care for patients with COPD is necessary. To achieve quality improvement in primary care, the general practitioner and the electronic health record (EHR) play an important role. The aim of this study was to develop a set of evidence-based and EHR extractable quality indicators (QIs) to measure and improve the quality of COPD primary care. We composed a multidisciplinary expert panel of 12 members, including patients, and used a RAND-modified Delphi method. The SMART principle was applied to select recommendations and QIs from international guidelines as well as existing sets of QIs, and these recommendations and QIs were added to an individual written questionnaire. Based on the median score, prioritization and degree of agreement, the recommendations and QIs were rated as having a high, uncertain or low potential to measure the quality of COPD primary care and were then discussed in an online consensus meeting for inclusion or exclusion. After a final validation, a core set of recommendations was translated into QIs. From 37 recommendations, obtained out of 10 international guidelines, and 5 existing indicators, a core set of 18 recommendations and 2 QIs was derived after the rating procedure. The expert panel added one new recommendation. Together, the recommendations and QIs were translated and merged into a final set of 21 QIs. Our study developed a set of 21 evidence-based and EHR-extractable QIs for COPD in primary care. These indicators can be used in an automated quality assessment to measure and improve the quality of COPD primary care.
| S-EPMC8933430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Quality indicators are measurable elements widely used to assess the quality of care. They are often developed from the results of systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. These sources are regularly updated in line with new clinical evidence, but there are few articles on updating quality indicators based on clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to update the quality indicators developed for low-risk labour care in Japan in 2012, mainly drawing on new or updated clinical practice guidelines, and making the process clearly visible and assessable. DESIGN AND SETTING:We used a modified Delphi method for the update. The procedure included four steps: (1) updating the definition of low-risk labour; (2) reviewing the literature published between June 2012 and December 2015 using five guidelines and two quality indicator databases to extract potential candidate indicators; (3) formation of a multidisciplinary panel including mothers and (4) panel ratings (two rounds between February and April 2016) on the validity of the candidate indicators, and judging the validity of the previous quality indicators drawing on the new evidence. PARTICIPANTS:A multidisciplinary panel of 13 clinicians, including obstetricians, paediatricians and midwives, plus 3 non-clinician mothers. RESULTS:The literature review identified 276 new recommendations from 27 clinical practice guidelines including 2 published in Japan and 21 quality indicators. We developed 13 new candidate indicators from these sources and panel recommendations, 12 of which were approved by the multidisciplinary panel. The panel also accepted all 23 existing quality indicators as still valid, resulting in a total of 35 quality indicators for low-risk labour. CONCLUSIONS:We successfully updated the quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan. The procedure developed may be useful for updating other quality indicators based on new clinical practice guidelines.
| S-EPMC6398654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo identify indicators of guideline-concordant care in lung cancer, to implement such indicators with cancer registry data linked to health databases, and to pilot them in a cohort of patients from the cancer registry of the Milan Province.MethodsThirty-four indicators were selected by revision of main guidelines by cancer epidemiologists, and then evaluated by a multidisciplinary panel of clinicians involved in lung cancer care and working on the pathway of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in the Lombardy region, Italy. With a modified Delphi method, they assessed for each indicator the content validity as a quality measure of the care pathway, the degree of modifiability from the health professional, and the relevance to the health professional. Feasibility was assessed using the cancer registry and the routine health records of the Lombardy region. Feasible indicators were then calculated in the cohort of lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2007-2012 derived from the cancer registry of the Milan Province. Criterion validity was assessed reviewing clinical records of a random sample of 114 patients (threshold for acceptable discordance ?20%). Finally, reliability was evaluated at the provider level.ResultsInitially, 34 indicators were proposed for evaluation in the first Delphi round. Of the finally 22 selected indicators, 3 were not feasible because the required information was actually not available. The remaining 19 were calculated on the pilot cohort. After assessment of criterion validity (3 eliminated), 16 indicators were retained in the final set and evaluated for reliability.ConclusionThe developed and piloted set of indicators is now available to implement and monitor, over time, quality initiatives for lung cancer care in the studied health system.
| S-EPMC7830847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreasing women's health literacy is the key to preventing cervical cancer, and various tools have been developed to assess women's cancer health literacy. However, many of these tools come from other countries and have not been adapted to Chinese requirements. Furthermore, a system for evaluating cervical cancer health literacy among Chinese women has not been developed. Therefore, we sought to establish an evaluation index system for cervical cancer health literacy among Chinese women and to provide an effective evaluation tool for tertiary prevention of cervical cancer in China.MethodsWe invited 20 recognized experts to participate in two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, and the modified Delphi process with percentage weighting and multiplication was used. A literature review identified 67 potential indicators. Subsequent discussions within our research team led to the retention of 48 indicators following a rigorous screening process. On this basis, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation were conducted to rate and screen the indexes. Percentage weighting and multiplication were used to determine index weights.ResultsTwenty experts participated in the first-round Delphi consultations (95.23% recovery rate). In the second-round Delphi consultations, 20 questionnaires were returned (100%), and the expert authority coefficient was 0.93 ± 0.02. After both rounds of Delphi consultation, 4 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 32 third-level indicators were identified for cervical cancer literacy among Chinese women. On a five-point scale, importance ratings ranged from 3.76 to 4.95 points, with variation coefficients ranging from 0.06 to 0.25, while sensitivity ratings ranged from 3.71 to 4.83 points, with variation coefficients ranging from 0.08 to 0.24. Across both rounds, Kendall's W coefficients ranged from 0.168 to 0.248. The weights of first-level indicators of basic knowledge and attitudes about cervical cancer, primary prevention of cervical cancer literacy, secondary prevention of cervical cancer literacy, and tertiary prevention of cervical cancer literacy were 0.257, 0.249, 0.251, and 0.243, respectively.ConclusionsWe have developed the first tertiary prevention-based, comprehensive evaluation index system for cervical cancer literacy among Chinese women, which will provide theoretical support for cervical cancer prevention and health education programs.
| S-EPMC10498636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common chronic condition and a rising public health issue with increased morbidity and mortality, even at an early stage. Primary care has a pivotal role in the early detection and in the integrated management of CKD which should be of high quality. The quality of care for CKD can be assessed using quality indicators (QIs) and if these QIs are extractable from the electronic medical record (EMR) of the general physician, the number of patients whose quality of care can be evaluated, could increase vastly. Therefore the aim of this study is to develop QIs which are evidence based, EMR extractable and which can be used as a framework to automate quality assessment.MethodsWe used a Rand-modified Delphi method to develop QIs for CKD in primary care. A questionnaire was designed by extracting recommendations from international guidelines based on the SMART principle and the EMR extractability. A multidisciplinary expert panel, including patients, individually scored the recommendations for measuring high quality care on a 9-point Likert scale. The results were analyzed based on the median Likert score, prioritization and agreement. Subsequently, the recommendations were discussed in a consensus meeting for their in- or exclusion. After a final appraisal by the panel members this resulted in a core set of recommendations, which were then transformed into QIs.ResultsA questionnaire composed of 99 recommendations was extracted from 10 international guidelines. The consensus meeting resulted in a core set of 36 recommendations that were translated into 36 QIs. This final set consists of QIs concerning definition & classification, screening, diagnosis, management consisting of follow up, treatment & vaccination, medication & patient safety and referral to a specialist. It were mostly the patients participating in the panel who stressed the importance of the QIs concerning medication & patient safety and a timely referral to a specialist.ConclusionThis study provides a set of 36 EMR extractable QIs for measuring the quality of primary care for CKD. These QIs can be used as a framework to automate quality assessment for CKD in primary care.
| S-EPMC7201612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number and efficacy of indicators used to monitor and improve the quality of care in Intensive Care Units (ICU) is debatable. This study aimed to select a consensus-based core set of indicators for effective quality improvement in the ICU.MethodsA Delphi study with a panel of intensivists, ICU nurses, and former ICU patients or relatives (n = 34) from general, teaching, and academic hospitals. Panelists completed a questionnaire in which they scored 69 preselected quality indicators on relevance using a nine-point Likert scale. Indicators were categorized using the rated relevance score into: 'accepted, 'equivocal' and 'excluded'. Questionnaire results were discussed in focus groups to reach consensus on the final set.ResultsResponse rates for the questionnaire and focus groups were 100 and 68%, respectively. Consensus was reached on a final set of 17 quality indicators including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs). Other quality indicators relate to the organization and outcome of ICU care, including safety culture, ICU standardized mortality ratio, and the process indicator 'learning from and improving after serious incidents'.ConclusionsICU clinicians and former patients and relatives developed a consensus-based core set of ICU quality indicators that is relatively short but comprehensive and particularly tailored to end-users needs.
| S-EPMC9255461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND::The goal of Palliative Day Services is to provide holistic care that contributes to the quality of life of people with life-threatening illness and their families. Quality indicators provide a means by which to describe, monitor and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services provision and act as a starting point for quality improvement. However, currently, there are no published quality indicators for Palliative Day Services. AIM::To develop and provide the first set of quality indicators that describe and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services. DESIGN AND SETTING::A modified Delphi technique was used to combine best available research evidence derived from a systematic scoping review with multidisciplinary expert appraisal of the appropriateness and feasibility of candidate indicators. The resulting indicators were compiled into 'toolkit' and tested in five UK Palliative Day Service settings. RESULTS::A panel of experts independently reviewed evidence summaries for 182 candidate indicators and provided ratings on appropriateness, followed by a panel discussion and further independent ratings of appropriateness, feasibility and necessity. This exercise resulted in the identification of 30 indicators which were used in practice testing. The final indicator set comprised 7 structural indicators, 21 process indicators and 2 outcome indicators. CONCLUSION::The indicators fulfil a previously unmet need among Palliative Day Service providers by delivering an appropriate and feasible means to assess, review, and communicate the quality of care, and to identify areas for quality improvement.
| S-EPMC6350181 | biostudies-other