Dataset Information

Selection of key recommendations for quality indicators describing good quality outbreak response.

ABSTRACT: The performance of recommended control measures is necessary for quick and uniform infectious disease outbreak control. To assess whether these procedures are performed, a valid set of quality indicators (QIs) is required. The goal of this study was to select a set of key recommendations that can be systematically translated into QIs to measure the quality of infectious disease outbreak response from the perspective of disaster emergency responders and infectious disease control professionals.Applying the Rand modified Delphi procedure, the following steps were taken to systematically select a set of key recommendations: extraction of recommendations from relevant literature; appraisal of the recommendations in terms of relevance through questionnaires to experts; expert meeting to discuss recommendations; prioritization of recommendations through a second questionnaire; and final expert meeting to approve the selected set. Infectious disease physicians and nurses, policymakers and communication experts participated in the expert group (n=48).In total, 54 national and international publications were systematically searched for recommendations, yielding over 200 recommendations. The Rand modified Delphi procedure resulted in a set of 65 key recommendations. The key recommendations were categorized into 10 domains describing the whole response pathway from outbreak recognition to aftercare.This study provides a set of key recommendations that represents 'good quality of response to an infectious disease outbreak'. These key recommendations can be systematically translated into QIs. Organizations and professionals involved in outbreak control can use these QIs to monitor the quality of response to infectious disease outbreaks and to assess in which domains improvement is needed.

SUBMITTER: Belfroid E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4397715 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat recommendations can be provided to improve terminology for normal and ectopic pregnancy description on ultrasound?Summary answerThe present ESHRE document provides 17 consensus recommendations on how to describe normally sited and different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound.What is known alreadyCurrent diagnostic criteria stipulate that each type of ectopic pregnancy can be defined by clear anatomical landmarks which facilitates reaching a correct diagnosis. However, a clear definition of normally sited pregnancies and a comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancies are still lacking.Study design size durationA working group of members of the ESHRE Special Interest Group in Implantation and Early Pregnancy (SIG-IEP) and selected experts in ultrasound was formed in order to write recommendations on the classification of ectopic pregnancies.Participants/materials setting methodsThe working group included nine members of different nationalities with internationally recognised experience in ultrasound and diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. This document is developed according to the manual for development of ESHRE recommendations for good practice. The recommendations were discussed until consensus by the working group, supported by a survey among the members of the ESHRE SIG-IEP.Main results and the role of chanceA clear definition of normally sited pregnancy on ultrasound scan is important to avoid misdiagnosis of uterine ectopic pregnancies. A comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancy must include definitions and descriptions of each type of ectopic pregnancy. Only a classification which provides descriptions and diagnostic criteria for all possible locations of ectopic pregnancy would be fit for use in routine clinical practice. The working group formulated 17 recommendations on the diagnosis of the different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. In addition, for each of the types of ectopic pregnancy, a schematic representation and examples on 2D and 3D ultrasound are provided.Limitations reasons for cautionOwing to the limited evidence available, recommendations are mostly based on clinical and technical expertise.Wider implications of the findingsThis document is expected to have a significant impact on clinical practice in ultrasound for early pregnancy. The development of this terminology will help to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.Study funding/competing interestsThe meetings of the working group were funded by ESHRE. T.T. declares speakers' fees from GE Healthcare. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.Trial registration numberN/A.DisclaimerThis Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE's GPRs should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE's GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, recommendation or favouring of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

Project description:Good quality indicators should have face validity, relevance to patients, and be able to be measured reliably. Beyond these general requirements, good quality indicators should also have certain statistical properties, including sufficient variability to identify poor performers, relative insensitivity to severity adjustment, and the ability to capture what providers do rather than patients' characteristics. We assessed the performance of candidate indicators of ICU quality on these criteria. Indicators included ICU readmission, mortality, several length of stay outcomes, and the processes of venous-thromboembolism and stress ulcer prophylaxis provision.Retrospective cohort study.One hundred thirty-eight U.S. ICUs from 2001-2008 in the Project IMPACT database.Two hundred sixty-eight thousand eight hundred twenty-four patients discharged from U.S. ICUs.None.We assessed indicators' (1) variability across ICU-years; (2) degree of influence by patient vs. ICU and hospital characteristics using the Omega statistic; (3) sensitivity to severity adjustment by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between models including vs. excluding patient variables, and (4) correlation between risk adjusted quality indicators using a Spearman correlation. Large ranges of among-ICU variability were noted for all quality indicators, particularly for prolonged length of stay (4.7-71.3%) and the proportion of patients discharged home (30.6-82.0%), and ICU and hospital characteristics outweighed patient characteristics for stress ulcer prophylaxis (?, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (?, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61), and ICU readmissions (?, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.90). Mortality measures were the most sensitive to severity adjustment (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve % difference, 29.6%); process measures were the least sensitive (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve % differences: venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, 3.4%; stress ulcer prophylaxis, 2.1%). None of the 10 indicators was clearly and consistently correlated with a majority of the other nine indicators.No indicator performed optimally across assessments. Future research should seek to define and operationalize quality in a way that is relevant to both patients and providers.

Project description:PurposePerimetry is a both demanding and strenuous examination method that is often accompanied by signs of fatigue, leading to false responses and thus incorrect results. Therefore, it is essential to monitor the response quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the response time (RT) and its variability (RTV) as quality indicators during static automated perimetry.MethodsSize III Goldmann stimuli (25.7') were shown with the OCTOPUS 900 perimeter in four visual field locations with 13 different stimulus luminance levels (0.04-160 cd/m2). An increased rate of false-positive and false-negative catch trials (25% each) served to monitor the response quality simultaneously together with response time recording. Data evaluation was divided into global and individual analysis. For global analysis, the agreement indices (AI, agreement between time periods with an increased number of false responses to catch trials and time periods with pathological response to time-based values set into relation to time periods in which only one of the two criteria was considered pathological) and for individual analysis, the Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. Ophthalmologically normal subjects with a visual acuity ≥ 0.8, and a maximum spherical/cylindrical ametropia of ± 8.00/2.50 dpt were included.ResultsForty-eight subjects (18 males, 30 females, age 22-78 years) were examined. The total number of false responses to catch trials was (median/maximum): 6/82. RT and RTV were compared to the occurrence of incorrect responses to catch trials. The resulting individual Spearman correlation coefficients (median/maximum) were for RT: ρRT = 0.05/0.35 and for RTV: ρRTV = 0.27/0.61. The global analysis of the RTV showed agreement indices (median/maximum) of AIRTV = 0.14/0.47.ConclusionsAccording to this study, an increased portion of catch trials is suitable as a verification tool for possible response quality indicators. The RTV is a promising parameter for indicating the response quality.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to develop a method of performing routine periodical quality controls (QC) of CT systems by automatically analyzing key performance indicators (KPIs), obtainable from images of manufacturers' quality assurance (QA) phantoms. A KPI pertains to a measurable or determinable QC parameter that is influenced by other underlying fundamental QC parameters. The established KPIs are based on relationships between existing QC parameters used in the annual testing program of CT scanners at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden. The KPIs include positioning, image noise, uniformity, homogeneity, the CT number of water, and the CT number of air. An application (MonitorCT) was developed to automatically evaluate phantom images in terms of the established KPIs. The developed methodology has been used for two years in clinical routine, where CT technologists perform daily scans of the manufacturer's QA phantom and automatically send the images to MonitorCT for KPI evaluation. In the cases where results were out of tolerance, actions could be initiated in less than 10 min. 900 QC scans from two CT scanners have been collected and analyzed over the two-year period that MonitorCT has been active. Two types of errors have been registered in this period: a ring artifact was discovered with the image noise test, and a calibration error was detected multiple times with the CT number test. In both cases, results were outside the tolerances defined for MonitorCT, as well as by the vendor. Automated monitoring of KPIs is a powerful tool that can be used to supplement established QC methodologies. Medical physicists and other professionals concerned with the performance of a CT system will, using such methods, have access to comprehensive data on the current and historical (trend) status of the system such that swift actions can be taken in order to ensure the quality of the CT examinations, patient safety, and minimal disruption of service.

Dataset Information

Selection of key recommendations for quality indicators describing good quality outbreak response.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets