Dataset Information

Assessing equity and quality indicators for older people - Adaptation and validation of the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) checklist for the Portuguese care context.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Development has promoted longer and healthier lives, but the rise in the proportion of older adults poses new challenges to health systems. Susceptibilities of older persons resulting from lower knowledge about services availability, health illiteracy, lower income, higher mental decline, or physical limitations need to be identified and monitored to assure the equity and quality of health care. The aim of this study was to develop equity indicators for the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE)-3 checklist and perform the first cross-cultural adaptation and validation of this checklist into Portuguese.

Methods

A scoping literature review of determinants or indicators of health (in)equity in the care of older people was performed. A total of 5 language experts and 18 health professionals were involved in the development and validation of the equity and quality indicators through expert opinion and focus groups. Data collected from focus groups was analyzed through directed or conventional content analysis. The usefulness of the indicators was assessed by analyzing the clinical records of 30 patients.

Results

The literature review revealed that there was a worldwide gap concerning equity indicators for older people primary health care. A structured and complete checklist composed of equity and quality indicators was obtained, validated and assessed. A significant number of non-screened quality or equity related potential occurrences that could have been avoided if the proposed indicators were implemented were detected. The percentage of non-registered indicators was 76.6% for quality and 96.7% for equity.

Conclusions

Applying the proposed checklist will contribute to improve the monitoring of the clinical situation of vulnerable older people and the planning of medical and social actions directed at this group.

SUBMITTER: Taveira A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9256534 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.

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:BackgroundAlmost 90% of residents living in long-term care facilities have limited mobility which is associated with a loss of ability in activities of daily living, falls, increased risk of serious medical problems such as pressure ulcers, incontinence and a significant decline in health-related quality of life. For health workers caring for residents it may also increase the risk of injury. The effectiveness of rehabilitation to facilitate mobility has been studied with dedicated research assistants or extensively trained staff caregivers; however, few investigators have examined the effectiveness of techniques to encourage mobility by usual caregivers in long-term care facilities.Methods/designThis longitudinal, quasi-experimental study is designed to demonstrate the effect of the sit-to-stand activity carried out by residents in the context of daily care with health care aides. In three intervention facilities health care aides will prompt residents to repeat the sit-to-stand action on two separate occasions during each day and each evening shift as part of daily care routines. In three control facilities residents will receive usual care. Intervention and control facilities are matched on the ownership model (public, private for-profit, voluntary not-for-profit) and facility size. The dose of the mobility intervention is assessed through the use of daily documentation flowsheets in the health record. Resident outcome measures include: 1) the 30-second sit-to-stand test; 2) the Functional Independence Measure; 3) the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3; and, 4) the Quality of Life - Alzheimer's Disease.DiscussionThere are several compelling reasons for this study: the widespread prevalence of limited mobility in this population; the rapid decline in mobility after admission to a long-term care facility; the importance of mobility to quality of life; the increased time (and therefore cost) required to care for residents with limited mobility; and, the increased risk of injury for health workers caring for residents who are unable to stand. The importance of these issues is magnified when considering the increasing number of people living in long-term care facilities and an aging population.Trial registrationThis clinical trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (trial registration number: NCT01474616).