Dataset Information

Global core indicators for measuring WHO's paediatric quality-of-care standards in health facilities: development and expert consensus.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are currently no global recommendations on a parsimonious and robust set of indicators that can be measured routinely or periodically to monitor quality of hospital care for children and young adolescents. We describe a systematic methodology used to prioritize and define a core set of such indicators and their metadata for progress tracking, accountability, learning and improvement, at facility, (sub) national, national, and global levels.

Methods

We used a deductive methodology which involved the use of the World Health Organization Standards for improving the quality-of-care for children and young adolescents in health facilities as the organizing framework for indicator development. The entire process involved 9 complementary steps which included: a rapid literature review of available evidence, the application of a peer-reviewed systematic algorithm for indicator systematization and prioritization, and multiple iterative expert consultations to establish consensus on the proposed indicators and their metadata.

Results

We derived a robust set of 25 core indicators and their metadata, representing all 8 World Health Organization quality standards, 40 quality statements and 520 quality measures. Most of these indicators are process-related (64%) and 20% are outcome/impact indicators. A large proportion (84%) of indicators were proposed for measurement at both outpatient and inpatient levels. By virtue of being a parsimonious set and given the stringent criteria for prioritizing indicators with "quality measurement" attributes, the recommended set is not evenly distributed across the 8 quality standards.

Conclusions

To support ongoing global and national initiatives around paediatric quality-of-care programming at country level, the recommended indicators can be adopted using a tiered approach that considers indicator measurability in the short-, medium-, and long-terms, within the context of the country's health information system readiness and maturity. However, there is a need for further research to assess the feasibility of implementing these indicators across contexts, and the need for their validation for global common reporting.

SUBMITTER: Muzigaba M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9270792 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReporting guidelines for different study designs are currently available to report studies with accuracy and transparency. There is a need to develop supplementary guideline items that are specific to areas within Pediatric Dentistry. This study aims to develop Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) guidelines using a pre-defined expert consensus-based Delphi process.MethodsThe development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the difference in the weighted mean scores between the themes.ResultsThe final RAPID checklist comprised of 128 items that were finalized and approved by the RDG members in the online consensus meeting. The percentage for high scores (scores 7 to 9) ranged from 69.57 to 100% for individual items. The overall weighted mean score of the final items ranged from 7.51 to 8.28 (out of 9) and the difference was statistically significant between the themes (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe RAPID statement provides guidance to researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported.

Project description:BackgroundThis study designed and applied accessible yet systematic methods to generate baseline information about the patterns and structure of Canada's neglected tropical disease (NTD) research network; a network that, until recently, was formed and functioned on the periphery of strategic Canadian research funding.MethodologyMULTIPLE METHODS WERE USED TO CONDUCT THIS STUDY, INCLUDING: (1) a systematic bibliometric procedure to capture archival NTD publications and co-authorship data; (2) a country-level "core-periphery" network analysis to measure and map the structure of Canada's NTD co-authorship network including its size, density, cliques, and centralization; and (3) a statistical analysis to test the correlation between the position of countries in Canada's NTD network ("k-core measure") and the quantity and quality of research produced.Principal findingsOver the past sixty years (1950-2010), Canadian researchers have contributed to 1,079 NTD publications, specializing in Leishmania, African sleeping sickness, and leprosy. Of this work, 70% of all first authors and co-authors (n = 4,145) have been Canadian. Since the 1990s, however, a network of international co-authorship activity has been emerging, with representation of researchers from 62 different countries; largely researchers from OECD countries (e.g. United States and United Kingdom) and some non-OECD countries (e.g. Brazil and Iran). Canada has a core-periphery NTD international research structure, with a densely connected group of OECD countries and some African nations, such as Uganda and Kenya. Sitting predominantly on the periphery of this research network is a cluster of 16 non-OECD nations that fall within the lowest GDP percentile of the network.Conclusion/significanceThe publication specialties, composition, and position of NTD researchers within Canada's NTD country network provide evidence that while Canadian researchers currently remain the overall gatekeepers of the NTD research they generate; there is opportunity to leverage existing research collaborations and help advance regions and NTD areas that are currently under-developed.

Project description:An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists met on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) in order to establish practice guidelines and to agree on consensus statements. The treatment of ICC requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to optimize survival. Biopsy is not necessary if the surgeon suspects ICC and is planning curative resection, although biopsy should be obtained before systemic or locoregional therapies are initiated. Assessment of resectability is best accomplished using cross-sectional imaging [computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)], but the role of positron emission tomography (PET) is unclear. Resectability in ICC is defined by the ability to completely remove the disease while leaving an adequate liver remnant. Extrahepatic disease, multiple bilobar or multicentric tumours, and lymph node metastases beyond the primary echelon are contraindications to resection. Regional lymphadenectomy should be considered a standard part of surgical therapy. In patients with high-risk features, the routine use of diagnostic laparoscopy is recommended. The preoperative diagnosis of combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) by imaging studies is extremely difficult. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment, but survival is worse than in HCC alone. There are no adequately powered, randomized Phase III trials that can provide definitive recommendations for adjuvant therapy for ICC. Patients with high-risk features (lymphovascular invasion, multicentricity or satellitosis, large tumours) should be encouraged to enrol in clinical trials and to consider adjuvant therapy. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine represents the standard-of-care, front-line systemic therapy for metastatic ICC. Genomic analyses of biliary cancers support the development of targeted therapeutic interventions.