Dataset Information

The PID Principles of Care: Where Are We Now? A Global Status Report Based on the PID Life Index.

ABSTRACT: A global gold standard framework for primary immunodeficiency (PID) care, structured around six principles, was published in 2014. To measure the implementation status of these principles IPOPI developed the PID Life Index in 2020, an interactive tool aggregating national PID data. This development was combined with a revision of the principles to consider advances in the field of health and science as well as political developments since 2014. The revision resulted in the following six principles: PID diagnosis, treatments, universal health coverage, specialised centres, national patient organisations and registries for PIDs. A questionnaire corresponding to these principles was sent out to IPOPI's national member organisations and to countries in which IPOPI had medical contacts, and data was gathered from 60 countries. The data demonstrates that, regardless of global scientific progress on PIDs with a growing number of diagnostic tools and better treatment options becoming available, the accessibility and affordability of these remains uneven throughout the world. It is not only visible between regions, but also between countries within the same region. One of the most urgent needs is medical education. In countries without immunologists, patients with PID suffer the risk of remaining undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, resulting in health implications or even death. Many countries also lack the infrastructure needed to carry out more advanced diagnostic tests and perform treatments such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or gene therapy. The incapacity to secure appropriate diagnosis and treatments affects the PID environment negatively in these countries. Availability and affordability also remain key issues, as diagnosis and treatments require coverage/reimbursement to ensure that patients with PID can access them in practice, not only in theory. This is still not the case in many countries of the world according to the PID Life Index. Although some countries do perform better than others, to date no country has fully implemented the PID principles of care, confirming the long way ahead to ensure an optimal environment for patients with PID in every country.

SUBMITTER: Nordin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8637458 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceKidney disease is a substantial worldwide clinical and public health problem, but information about available care is limited.ObjectiveTo collect information on the current state of readiness, capacity, and competence for the delivery of kidney care across countries and regions of the world.Design, setting, and participantsQuestionnaire survey administered from May to September 2016 by the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) to 130 ISN-affiliated countries with sampling of key stakeholders (national nephrology society leadership, policy makers, and patient organization representatives) identified by the country and regional nephrology leadership through the ISN.Main outcomes and measuresCore areas of country capacity and response for kidney care.ResultsResponses were received from 125 of 130 countries (96%), including 289 of 337 individuals (85.8%, with a median of 2 respondents [interquartile range, 1-3]), representing an estimated 93% (6.8 billion) of the world's population of 7.3 billion. There was wide variation in country readiness, capacity, and response in terms of service delivery, financing, workforce, information systems, and leadership and governance. Overall, 119 (95%), 95 (76%), and 94 (75%) countries had facilities for hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. In contrast, 33 (94%), 16 (45%), and 12 (34%) countries in Africa had facilities for hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. For chronic kidney disease (CKD) monitoring in primary care, serum creatinine with estimated glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria measurements were reported as always available in only 21 (18%) and 9 (8%) countries, respectively. Hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and transplantation services were funded publicly and free at the point of care delivery in 50 (42%), 48 (51%), and 46 (49%) countries, respectively. The number of nephrologists was variable and was low (<10 per million population) in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Oceania and South East Asia (OSEA) regions. Health information system (renal registry) availability was limited, particularly for acute kidney injury (8 countries [7%]) and nondialysis CKD (9 countries [8%]). International acute kidney injury and CKD guidelines were reportedly accessible in 52 (45%) and 62 (52%) countries, respectively. There was relatively low capacity for clinical studies in developing nations.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey demonstrated significant interregional and intraregional variability in the current capacity for kidney care across the world, including important gaps in services and workforce. Assuming the responses accurately reflect the status of kidney care in the respondent countries, the findings may be useful to inform efforts to improve the quality of kidney care worldwide.

Project description:BackgroundThe Movember funded TrueNTH Global Registry (TNGR) aims to improve care by collecting and analysing a consistent dataset to identify variation in disease management, benchmark care delivery in accordance with best practice guidelines and provide this information to those in a position to enact change. We discuss considerations of designing and implementing a quality of care report for TNGR.MethodsEleven working group sessions were held prior to and as reports were being built with representation from clinicians, data managers and investigators contributing to TNGR. The aim of the meetings was to understand current data display approaches, share literature review findings and ideas for innovative approaches. Preferred displays were evaluated with two surveys (survey 1: 5 clinicians and 5 non-clinicians, 83% response rate; survey 2: 17 clinicians and 18 non-clinicians, 93% response rate).ResultsConsensus on dashboard design and three data-display preferences were achieved. The dashboard comprised two performance summary charts; one summarising site's relative quality indicator (QI) performance and another to summarise data quality. Binary outcome QIs were presented as funnel plots. Patient-reported outcome measures of function score and the extent to which men were bothered by their symptoms were presented in bubble plots. Time series graphs were seen as providing important information to supplement funnel and bubble plots. R Markdown was selected as the software program principally because of its excellent analytic and graph display capacity, open source licensing model and the large global community sharing program code enhancements.ConclusionsInternational collaboration in creating and maintaining clinical quality registries has allowed benchmarking of process and outcome measures on a large scale. A registry report system was developed with stakeholder engagement to produce dynamic reports that provide user-specific feedback to 132 participating sites across 13 countries.

Project description:BackgroundPublic reporting of provider performance can assist consumers in their choice of providers and stimulate providers to improve quality. Reporting of quality measures is supported by advocates of health care reform across the political spectrum.ObjectiveTo assess the availability, credibility and applicability of existing public reports of hospital and physician quality, with comparisons across geographic areas.ApproachInformation pertaining to 263 public reports in 21 geographic areas was collected through reviews of websites and telephone and in-person interviews, and used to construct indicators of public reporting status. Interview data collected in 14 of these areas were used to assess recent changes in reporting and their implications.ParticipantsInterviewees included staff of state and local associations, health plan representatives and leaders of local health care alliances.ResultsThere were more reports of hospital performance (161) than of physician performance (103) in the study areas. More reports included measures derived from claims data (mean, 7.2 hospital reports and 3.3 physician reports per area) than from medical records data. Typically, reports on physician performance contained measures of chronic illness treatment constructed at the medical group level, with diabetes measures the most common (mean number per non-health plan report, 2.3). Patient experience measures were available in more hospital reports (mean number of reports, 1.2) than physician reports (mean, 0.7). Despite the availability of national hospital reports and reports sponsored by national health plans, from a consumer standpoint the status of public reporting depended greatly on where one lived and health plan membership.ConclusionsCurrent public reports, and especially reports of physician quality of care, have significant limitations from both consumer and provider perspectives. The present approach to reporting is being challenged by the development of new information sources for consumers, and consumer and provider demands for more current information.

Dataset Information

The PID Principles of Care: Where Are We Now? A Global Status Report Based on the PID Life Index.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets