Dataset Information

Quality indicators of telemedical care offshore-a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Offshore industries operate all around the world in diverse and remote environments. The use of telemedicine to ensure up-to-date medical care for thousands of people offshore has been common practice for decades. Thus, in this setting, extensive experiences with this type of health care delivery have already been gathered, while in other settings this is just beginning. However, the quality of telemedical care on offshore installations is rarely reported yet. The objective of this review was to explore published literature with regards to the following questions: Have any Quality Indicators (QIs) been published for measuring the quality of telemedical care on offshore installations or are there identifiable items that could be used as such QIs?

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) of the published literature using the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (Core Collection), and Google Scholar. Search results were read and QIs or findings from which QIs could be derived were classified according to the dimensions of quality established by Donabedian (structure, process, or outcome QIs).

Results

The search returned 10,236 non-recurring articles, 45 of which were full-text screened and 15 of which were included in this review. Types of publications were heterogenous. No QIs for the quality of telemedical care offshore have been published yet. Findings that could be the basis for QIs focused on structure quality (11 QIs) followed by process quality (11 QIs), while outcome quality was less common (1 QI).

Conclusion

Currently, although years of experience with telemedical care on offshore installations exist, there is a paucity of research on a solid data base regarding the quality of telemedical care offshore. The authors derived a list of 24 possible QIs from the findings of the publications for further validation. This could be the basis for implementation and definition of QIs in this and in similar remote settings.

SUBMITTER: Hellfritz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8638379 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCardiovascular diseases impose significant financial impact on countries implementing universal health coverage (UHC). Hypertension is a primary disease that will lead to more severe conditions without adequate clinical care. The quality of its clinical care must be well assessed in order to measure the effective coverage of people with hypertension in UHC. This study aims to identify indicators that can be used to measure the quality of clinical care provided to patients with hypertension in healthcare facilities.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted using the six stages of the scoping review method: identifying the research question, searching for relevant studies, selecting studies, charting the data, collating, summarising and reporting the results, and conducting consultation exercises. The review will include all quality indicators used for clinical care of patients with hypertension at any healthcare facility. All research designs will be included. Search strategies are developed using the medical subject headings and keywords related to hypertension and quality indicators. Several electronic databases, that is, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science, including clinical-guideline databases from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Health Service Evidence and Medical Information Network Distribution Service, and also grey literature will be used. Two researchers will screen the titles and abstracts and review the full text of selected articles to determine the final inclusion. The results will be summarised quantitatively, using numerical counts, and qualitatively, using thematic analysis. The data extraction will include a complete list and detailed profile of all indicators. Stakeholder consultation will be conducted at the beginning and after preliminary results to translate findings to the potential knowledge users.Ethical considerations and disseminationReviews of published articles are considered secondary analysis and do not need ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through various strategies, such as policy briefs, conferences, peer-reviewed journals, and on selected websites relevant to the subject.Study statusData collection for the scoping review will include publications up to May 2019, and the analysis will start in June 2019.

Project description:BackgroundQuality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality. Currently, there is no basic set of quality indicators for chiropractic care published in peer-reviewed literature. The goal of this research is to develop a preliminary set of quality indicators, measurable with administrative data.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review searching PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases. Eligible articles were published after 2011, in English, developing/reporting best practices and clinical guidelines specifically developed for, or directly applicable to, chiropractic care. Eligible non-peer-reviewed sources such as quality measures published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Royal College of Chiropractors quality standards were also included. Following a stepwise eligibility determination process, data abstraction identified specific statements from included sources that can conceivably be measured with administrative data. Once identified, statements were transformed into potential indicators by: 1) Generating a brief title and description; 2) Documenting a source; 3) Developing a metric; and 4) Assigning a Donabedian category (structure, process, outcome). Draft indicators then traversed a 5-step assessment: 1) Describes a narrowly defined structure, process, or outcome; 2) Quantitative data can conceivably be available; 3) Performance is achievable; 4) Metric is relevant; 5) Data are obtainable within reasonable time limits. Indicators meeting all criteria were included in the final set.ResultsLiterature searching revealed 2562 articles. After removing duplicates and conducting eligibility determination, 18 remained. Most were clinical guidelines (n = 10) and best practice recommendations (n = 6), with 1 consensus and 1 clinical standards development study. Data abstraction and transformation produced 204 draft quality indicators. Of those, 57 did not meet 1 or more assessment criteria. After removing duplicates, 70 distinct indicators remained. Most indicators matched the Donabedian category of process (n = 35), with 31 structure and 4 outcome indicators. No sources were identified to support indicator development from patient perspectives.ConclusionsThis article proposes a preliminary set of 70 quality indicators for chiropractic care, theoretically measurable with administrative data and largely obtained from electronic health records. Future research should assess feasibility, achieve stakeholder consensus, develop additional indicators including those considering patient perspectives, and study relationships with clinical outcomes.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework, https://osf.io/t7kgm.

Project description:Background:Recently, measuring and benchmarking provision of healthcare services has drawn a considerable attention. This scoping review was conducted to identify, describe, and summarize studies in which the Delphi technique was used to develop quality indicators of pharmaceutical care. The study also aimed to identify activities and services that could be used to capture the impact of pharmacist in integrative medicine. Methods:Databases were searched from inception to February 2020 using key terms that were combined using Boolean operators. Studies were included if they were relevant to development of quality indicators of pharmaceutical care with regard to medications or complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities. Full text of the selected studies was imported into EndNote. Studies were screened and data were extracted into a standard extraction form. Results:Data were extracted from 31 studies. Of those, 24 (77.4%) were related to provision of pharmaceutical services relevant to medications and 7 (22.6%) were related to provision of care using CAM modalities. Most of the studies (67.7%) were published in 2010 and beyond. Almost half of the studies (48.4%) originated from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. A total of 42 different activities and services that could be used as quality indicators were identified from the studies included in this review. Activities and services were related to history taking, performing reconciliations, identifying and resolving therapy problems, providing collaborative care, designing care plans, optimal performance, and continuing education. Conclusions:Although there is an increasing interest in improving healthcare delivery, quality indicators of pharmaceutical services and those relevant to CAM provision in healthcare facilities adopting the integrated healthcare paradigm are still limited. Future studies are needed to develop validated quality indicators that could be successfully used in measuring and benchmarking quality of services in integrated healthcare facilities.

Project description:BackgroundExcess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management (Berenholtz et al., J Crit Care 17:1-2, 2002; De Vos et al., J Crit Care 22:267-74, 2007; Zimmerman J Crit Care 1:12-5, 2002). Routine measurement of quality indicators (QIs) through an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on QIs for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and both the reported advantages and challenges of implementation.MethodWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase the sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform or EHR adapted for quality of care surveillance.ResultsThe search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. Fifty-one unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%), hospital processes (54.9%), and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%).ConclusionsDespite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder-driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritized and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Hip fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality and care of hip fracture patients places a heavy burden on healthcare systems due to prolonged recovery time. Measuring quality of care delivered to hip fracture patients is important to help target efforts to improve care for patients and efficiency of the health system. The purpose of this study is to synthesise the evidence surrounding quality of care indicators for patients who have sustained a hip fracture. Using a scoping review methodology, the research question that will be addressed is: "What patient, institutional, and system-level indicators are currently in use or proposed for measuring quality of care across the continuum for individuals following a hip fracture?". METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will employ the methodological frameworks used by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. The synthesis will be limited to quality of care indicators for individuals who suffered low trauma hip fracture. All English peer-reviewed studies published from the year 2000-most recent will be included. Literature search strategies will be developed using medical subject headings and text words related to hip fracture quality indicators and the search will be peer-reviewed. Numerous electronic databases will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, followed by screening of the full text of potentially relevant articles to determine final inclusion. Abstracted data will include study characteristics and indicator definitions. DISSEMINATION:To improve quality of care for patients and create a more efficient healthcare system, mechanisms for the measurement of quality of care are required. The implementation of quality of care indicators enables stakeholders to target areas for improvement in service delivery. Knowledge translation activities will occur throughout the review with dissemination of the project goals and findings to local, national, and international stakeholders.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the scope of literature regarding infertility and fertility care indicators in terms of types and dimensions of these indicators?Summary answerMost available infertility and fertility care indicators are outcomes indicators of effectiveness and efficiency dimensions.What is known alreadyThe use of appropriate, relevant and valid indicators of infertility and fertility care is critical for monitoring access, equity and utilization.Study design size durationA systematic scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, Pubmed, JSTOR, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from inception to May 2022 without imposing language or date restrictions. We searched gray literature and online libraries of relevant organizations. We hand-searched the list of relevant references.Participants/materials setting methodsThis scoping systematic review followed the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Records identified by the search were independently screened and data were extracted. We performed conceptual synthesis by grouping the reported indicators by typology and dimensions. Structured tabulation and graphical synthesis were used along with narrative commentary.Main results and the role of chanceWe included 46 reports from 88 countries. The reporting of infertility and fertility care indicators was voluntary in 63 countries (72%) and compulsory in 25 countries (28%). Reporting for cycles or deliveries was based on individual cycles in 56 countries (64%) and on cumulative cycles in 32 countries (36%). Most indicators were utilized as outcome indicators with fewer being process indicators or structural indicators. For the dimension of indicators, most indicators were utilized as effectiveness and efficiency indicators with fewer utilized as indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness.Limitations reasons for cautionMost indicators fall into the domain of assisted reproductive technology and are reported by fertility clinics. Indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness as well as non-clinical indicators are almost invisible.Wider implications of the findingsA wide range of indicators of infertility and fertility care exist in literature. Most indicators were effectiveness and efficiency indicators, while indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness remain almost invisible. The scope of the current indicators indicates a predominant focus on clinical metrics, with substantial invisibility of non-clinical indicators and indicators outside the ART domain. These gaps need to be considered in further work of identifying a core set of indicators.Study funding/competing interestsThis work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors had no competing interests.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework vsu42.