[Electroretinographic changes in senile macular degeneration].

F. Trimarchi

1968-03-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Development and pilot of clinical performance indicators for English ambulance services

A Niroshan Siriwardena,Deborah Shaw,Rachael Donohoe,Sarah Black,John Stephenson,A. N. Siriwardena,D. Shaw,R. Donohoe,S. Black,J. Stephenson,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2009.072397

2010-04-01

Emergency Medicine Journal

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: There is a compelling need to develop clinical performance indicators for ambulance services in order to move from indicators based primarily on response times and in light of the changing clinical demands on services. We report on progress on the national pilot of clinical performance indicators for English ambulance services.METHOD: Clinical performance indicators were developed in five clinical areas: acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke (including transient ischaemic attack), asthma and hypoglycaemia. These were determined on the basis of common acute conditions presenting to ambulance services and in line with a previously published framework. Indicators were piloted by ambulance services in England and results were presented in tables and graphically using funnel (statistical process control) plots.RESULTS: Progress for developing, agreeing and piloting of indicators has been rapid, from initial agreement in May 2007 to completion of the pilot phase by the end of March 2008. The results of benchmarking of indicators are shown. The pilot has informed services in deciding the focus of their improvement programme in 2008-2009 and indicators have been adopted for national performance assessment of standards of prehospital care.CONCLUSION: The pilot will provide the basis for further development of clinical indicators, benchmarking of performance and implementation of specific evidence-based interventions to improve care in areas identified for improvement. A national performance improvement registry will enable evaluation and sharing of effective improvement methods as well as increasing stakeholder and public access to information on the quality of care provided by ambulance services.

emergency medicine
Implementing decision aids for cardiovascular disease prevention: stakeholder interviews and case studies in Australian primary care

Carissa Bonner,Samuel Cornell,Kristen Pickles,Carys Batcup,Carl de Wet,Mark Morgan,Kim Greaves,Denise O'Connor,Anna L Hawkes,Paul Crosland,Niamh Chapman,Jenny Doust

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02258-4

2024-02-03

Abstract:Background: Australian cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend absolute CVD risk assessment, but less than half of eligible patients have the required risk factors recorded due to fragmented implementation over the last decade. Co-designed decision aids for general practitioners (GPs) and consumers have been developed that improve knowledge barriers to guideline-recommended CVD risk assessment and management. This study used a stakeholder consultation process to identify and pilot test the feasibility of implementation strategies for these decision aids in Australian primary care. Methods: This mixed methods study included: (1) stakeholder consultation to map existing implementation strategies (2018-20); (2) interviews with 29 Primary Health Network (PHN) staff from all Australian states and territories to identify new implementation opportunities (2021); (3) pilot testing the feasibility of low, medium, and high resource implementation strategies (2019-21). Framework Analysis was used for qualitative data and Google analytics provided decision support usage data over time. Results: Informal stakeholder discussions indicated a need to partner with existing programs delivered by the Heart Foundation and PHNs. PHN interviews identified the importance of linking decision aids with GP education resources, quality improvement activities, and consumer-focused prevention programs. Participants highlighted the importance of integration with general practice processes, such as business models, workflows, medical records and clinical audit software. Specific implementation strategies were identified as feasible to pilot during COVID-19: (1) low resource: adding website links to local health area guidelines for clinicians and a Heart Foundation toolkit for primary care providers; (2) medium resource: presenting at GP education conferences and integrating the resources into audit and feedback reports; (3) high resource: auto-populate the risk assessment and decision aids from patient records via clinical audit software. Conclusions: This research identified a wide range of feasible strategies to implement decision aids for CVD risk assessment and management. The findings will inform the translation of new CVD guidelines in primary care. Future research will use economic evaluation to explore the added value of higher versus lower resource implementation strategies.
Developing and evaluating packages to support implementation of quality indicators in general practice: the ASPIRE research programme, including two cluster RCTs

Robbie Foy,Thomas Willis,Liz Glidewell,Rosie McEachan,Rebecca Lawton,David Meads,Michelle Collinson,Cheryl Hunter,Claire Hulme,Robert West,Vicky Ward,Suzanne Hartley,Paul Carder,Sarah Alderson,Michael Holland,Peter Heudtlass,Daniele Bregantini,Laetitia Schmitt,Susan Clamp,Tim Stokes,Emma Ingleson,Martin Rathfelder,Stella Johnson,Judith Richardson,Bruno Rushforth,Duncan Petty,Armando Vargas-Palacios,Gemma Louch,Jane Heyhoe,Ian Watt,Amanda Farrin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar08040

2020-03-01

Programme Grants for Applied Research

Abstract:Background Dissemination of clinical guidelines is necessary but seldom sufficient by itself to ensure the reliable uptake of evidence-based practice. There are further challenges in implementing multiple clinical guidelines and clinical practice recommendations in the pressurised environment of general practice. Objectives We aimed to develop and evaluate an implementation package that could be adapted to support the uptake of a range of clinical guideline recommendations and be sustainably integrated within general practice systems and resources. Over five linked work packages, we developed ‘high-impact’ quality indicators to show where a measurable change in clinical practice can improve patient outcomes (work package 1), analysed adherence to selected indicators (work package 2), developed an adaptable implementation package (work package 3), evaluated the effects and cost-effectiveness of adapted implementation packages targeting four indicators (work package 4) and examined intervention fidelity and mechanisms of action (work package 5). Setting and participants Health-care professionals and patients from general practices in West Yorkshire, UK. Design We reviewed recommendations from existing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidance and used a multistage consensus process, including 11 professionals and patients, to derive a set of ‘high-impact’ evidence-based indicators that could be measured using routinely collected data (work package 1). In 89 general practices that shared data, we found marked variations and scope for improvement in adherence to several indicators (work package 2). Interviews with 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers explored perceived determinants of adherence to selected indicators and suggested the feasibility of adapting an implementation package to target different indicators (work package 3). We worked with professional and patient panels to develop four adapted implementation packages. These targeted risky prescribing involving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet drugs, type 2 diabetes control, blood pressure control and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. The implementation packages embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach and (for risky prescribing) computerised prompts. We randomised 178 practices to implementation packages targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (trial 1), or blood pressure control or anticoagulation (trial 2), or to a further control (non-intervention) group, and undertook economic modelling (work package 4). In trials 1 and 2, practices randomised to the implementation package for one indicator acted as control practices for the other package, and vice versa. A parallel process evaluation included a further eight practices (work package 5). Main outcome measures Trial primary end points at 11 months comprised achievement of all recommended levels of glycated haemoglobin, blood pressure and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended blood pressure; and anticoagulation prescribing. Results We recruited 178 (73%) out of 243 eligible general practices. We randomised 80 practices to trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to trial 2 (32 per arm), with 34 non-intervention controls. The risky prescribing implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio 0.82, 97.5% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.99; p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2337 per quality-adjusted life-year. The other three packages had no effect on primary end points. The process evaluation suggested that trial outcomes were influenced by losses in fidelity throughout intervention delivery and enactment, and by the nature of the targeted clinical and patient behaviours. Limitations Our programme was conducted in one geographical area; however, practice and patient population characteristics are otherwise likely to be sufficiently diverse and typical to enhance generalisability to the UK. We used an ‘opt-out’ approach to recruit general practices to the randomised trials. Subsequently, our trial practices may have engaged with the implementation package less than if they had actively volunteered. However, this approach increases confidence in the wider applicability of trial findings as it replicates guideline implementation activities under standard conditions. Conclusions This pragmatic, rigorous evaluation indicates the value of an implementation package targeting risky prescribing. In broad terms, an adapted ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach did not consistently work, with no improvement for other targeted indicators. Future work There are challenges in designing ‘one-size-fits-all’ implementation strategies that are sufficiently robust to bring about change in the face of difficult clinical contexts and fidelity losses. We recommend maximising feasibility and ‘stress testing’ prior to rolling out interventions within a definitive evaluation. Our programme has led on to other work, adapting audit and feedback for other priorities and evaluating different ways of delivering feedback to improve patient care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91989345. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research ; Vol. 8, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Development of clinically meaningful quality indicators for contemporary lung cancer care, and piloting and evaluation in a retrospective cohort; experiences of the Embedding Research (and Evidence) in Cancer Healthcare (EnRICH) Program

Brown,B.,Galpin,K.,Simes,J.,Boyer,M.,Brown,C.,Chin,V.,Young,J.,on behalf of the Clinical Advisory Group,on behalf of Clinical Advisory Group,ODonnell,Brown,McCaughan,Barnes,Seah,McPhail,Young,Simes,Briscoe,Galpin,Boyer,Jones,Chin,Cooper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074399

IF: 3.006

2024-02-15

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives Lung cancer continues to be the most common cause of cancer-related death and the leading cause of morbidity and burden of disease across Australia. There is an ongoing need to identify and reduce unwarranted clinical variation that may contribute to these poor outcomes for patients with lung cancer. An Australian national strategy acknowledges clinical quality outcome data as a critical component of a continuously improving healthcare system but there is a need to ensure clinical quality indicators adequately measure evidence-based contemporary care, including novel and emerging treatments. This study aimed to develop a suite of lung cancer-specific, evidence-based, clinically acceptable quality indicators to measure quality of care and outcomes, and an associated comparative feedback dashboard to provide performance data to clinicians and hospital administrators. Design A multistage modified Delphi process was undertaken with a Clinical Advisory Group of multidisciplinary lung cancer specialists, with patient representation, to update and prioritise potential indicators of lung cancer care derived from a targeted review of published literature and reports from national and international lung cancer quality registries. Quality indicators were piloted and evaluated with multidisciplinary teams in a retrospective observational cohort study using clinical audit data from the Embedding Research (and Evidence) in Cancer Healthcare Program, a prospective clinical cohort of over 2000 patients with lung cancer diagnosed from May 2016 to October 2021. Setting and participants Six tertiary specialist cancer centres in metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Australia. Results From an initial 37 potential quality indicators, a final set of 10 indicators spanning diagnostic, treatment, quality of life and survival domains was agreed. Conclusions These indicators build on and update previously available measures of lung cancer care and outcomes in use by national and international lung cancer clinical quality registries which, to our knowledge, have not been recently updated to reflect the changing lung cancer treatment paradigm.

medicine, general & internal
Consented indicators for the evaluation of integrated strategies of community health promotion targeting children and adolescents: results of an eDelphi

Myriam Robert,Michaela Coenen,Julia Bauer,Stephan Voss,Caroline Jung-Sievers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17370-4

IF: 4.5

2024-01-22

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background To date, there is no consensus on indicators for the evaluation of integrated community-based interventions for health promotion and prevention targeting children and adolescents. This study aims at consenting on a scoped set of indicators to evaluate integrated community-based interventions. Methods Out of 738 indicators derived from a literature search, we preselected 94 indicators allotted to 20 domains based on an internal quality appraisal and consensus process and conducted an eDelphi procedure to assess their relevance in view of experts. Experts were recruited in the field of public health, health sciences and communal health promotion in practice and were invited as participants in this eDelphi. During the eDelphi, 47 experts rated the relevance of 94 indicators in two rounds. Consensus was defined as agreement of 75% (or above). Results After round 1, 27 indicators among 11 consented subdomains reached a consensus on relevance. After round 2, a total of 36 indicators reached consensus on relevance in 9 subdomains (such as socioeconomic factors, health education, nutrition and physical activity, oral health, overall health status, specific health conditions, drug related behavior, exposure to drugs and violence, family factors). Conclusions These identified indicators may provide a basis for evaluation concepts of integrated community-based interventions for children and adolescents to inform stakeholders about intervention impacts.

public, environmental & occupational health
Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process

Bruno Rushforth,Tim Stokes,Elizabeth Andrews,Thomas A. Willis,Rosemary McEachan,Simon Faulkner,Robbie Foy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6

IF: 2.6338

2015-10-28

BMC Family Practice

Abstract:BackgroundQuality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care.MethodsWe reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of ‘high impact’ QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England.ResultsOut of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites – comprising 2–9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Influence of cyclic fatigue in water on the load-bearing capacity of dental bridges made of zirconia.

P. Kohorst,M. Dittmer,L. Borchers,M. Stiesch-Scholz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2008.04.012

IF: 10.633

2008-09-01

Acta Biomaterialia

Abstract:
Development of quality indicators for care of chronic kidney disease in the primary care setting using electronic health data: a RAND-modified Delphi method

Shingo Fukuma,Sayaka Shimizu,Kakuya Niihata,Ken-ei Sada,Motoko Yanagita,Tsuguru Hatta,Masaomi Nangaku,Ritsuko Katafuchi,Yoshiro Fujita,Junji Koizumi,Shunzo Koizumi,Kenjiro Kimura,Shunichi Fukuhara,Yugo Shibagaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10157-016-1274-8

IF: 2.6212

2016-05-04

Clinical and Experimental Nephrology

Abstract:BackgroundThe prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) has recently increased, and maintaining high quality of CKD care is a major factor in preventing end-stage renal disease. Here, we developed novel quality indicators for CKD care based on existing electronic health data.MethodsWe used a modified RAND appropriateness method to develop quality indicators for the care of non-dialysis CKD patients, by combining expert opinion and scientific evidence. A multidisciplinary expert panel comprising six nephrologists, two primary care physicians, one diabetes specialist, and one rheumatologist assessed the appropriateness of potential indicators extracted from evidence-based clinical guidelines, in accordance with predetermined criteria. We developed novel quality indicators through a four-step process: selection of potential indicators, first questionnaire round, face-to-face meeting, and second questionnaire round.ResultsTen expert panel members evaluated 19 potential indicators in the first questionnaire round, of which 7 were modified, 12 deleted, and 4 newly added during subsequent face-to-face meetings, giving a final total of 11 indicators. Median rate of these 11 indicators in the final set was at least 7, and percentages of agreement exceeded 80 % for all but one indicator. All indicators in the final set can be measured using only existing electronic health data, without medical record review, and 9 of 11 are process indicators.ConclusionWe developed 11 quality indicators to assess quality of care for non-dialysis CKD patients. Strengths of the developed indicators are their applicability in a primary care setting, availability in daily practice, and emphasis on modifiable processes.

urology & nephrology
Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: An observational study

Thomas A. Willis,Robert West,Bruno Rushforth,Tim Stokes,Liz Glidewell,Paul Carder,Simon Faulkner,Robbie Foy,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177949

IF: 3.7

2017-07-13

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK).METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice.RESULTS: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models.CONCLUSIONS: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.

multidisciplinary sciences
Clinical governance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators

Alastair McColl,Paul Roderick,Emma Wilkinson,John Gabbay,Helen Smith,Michael Moore,Mark Exworthy,A. McColl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.90

2000-06-01

Quality in Health Care

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of deriving comparative indicators in all the practices within a primary care group.DESIGN: A retrospective audit using practice computer systems and random note review.SETTING: A primary care group in southern England.SUBJECTS: All 18 general practices in a primary care group.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty six evidence-based process indicators including aspirin therapy in high risk patients, detection and control of hypertension, smoking cessation advice, treatment of heart failure, raised cholesterol levels in those with established cardiovascular disease, and the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Feasibility was tested by examining whether it was possible to derive these indicators in all the practices; the problems and constraints incurred when collecting data; the variations in indicator values between practices in both their identification of diseases and in the uptake of various interventions; the possible reasons for these variations; and the cost of generating such indicators.RESULTS: It was possible to derive eight indicators in all practices and in three practices all 26 indicators. The median number of indicators derived was 12 with two practices able to generate eight. There was considerable variation in the use of computers between practices and in the ability and ease of various practice computer systems to generate indicators. Practices varied greatly in the identification of diseases and in the uptake of effective interventions. Variation in identification of ischaemic heart disease could not be explained by a higher prevalence in practices with a more deprived population. The cost of generating these indicators was 5300 Pounds.CONCLUSION: Comparative evidence-based indicators, used as part of clinical governance in primary care groups, could have the potential to turn evidence into everyday practice, to improve the quality of patient care, and to have an impact on the population's health. However, to derive such indicators and to be able to make meaningful comparisons primary care groups need greater conformity and compatibility of computer systems, improved computer skills for practice staff, and appropriate funding.
Development of quality indicators for hypertension, extractable from the electronic health record of the general practitioner: a rand-modified Delphi method

Katrien Danhieux,Marieke Hollevoet,Sien Lismont,Pieter Taveirne,Lotte Van Vaerenbergh,Bert Vaes,Steve Van den Bulck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02543-w

2024-08-15

Abstract:Background: Hypertension, a chronic medical condition affecting millions of people worldwide, is a leading cause of cardiovascular diseases. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to reduce the burden of the disease, with general practitioners playing a vital role. Therefore, it is crucial that GPs provide high-quality care that is standardized and based on the most recent European guidelines. Quality indicators (QIs) can be used to assess the performance, outcomes, or processes of healthcare delivery and are critical in helping healthcare professionals identify areas of improvement and measure progress towards achieving desired health outcomes. However, QIs to evaluate the care of patients with hypertension in general practice have been studied to a limited extent. The aim of our study is to define quality indicators for hypertension in general practice that are extractable from the electronic health record (EHR) and can be used to evaluate and improve the quality of care for hypertensive patients in the general practice setting. Methods: We used a Rand-modified Delphi procedure. We extracted recommendations from European guidelines and assembled them into an online questionnaire. An initial scoring based on the SMART principle and extractability from the EHR was performed by panel members, these results were analyzed using a Median Likert score, prioritization and degree of consensus. A consensus meeting was set up in which all the recommendations were discussed, followed by a final validation round. Results: Our study extracted 115 recommendations. After analysis of the online questionnaire round and a consensus meeting round, 37 recommendations were accepted and 75 were excluded. Of these 37 recommendations, 9 were slightly modified and 4 were combined into 2 recommendations, resulting in a list of 35 recommendations. All recommendations of the final set were translated to QIs, made up of 7 QIs on screening, 6 QIs on diagnosis, 11 QIs on treatment, 5 QIs on outcome and 6 QIs on follow-up. Conclusions: Our study resulted in a set of 35 QIs for hypertension in general practice. These QIs, tailored to the Belgian EHR, provide a robust foundation for automated audit and feedback and could substantially benefit other countries if adapted to their systems.
Construction of Nursing-Sensitive Quality Indicators for Cardiac Catheterisation: A Delphi Study and an Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Zhiyun Shen,Wei Qin,Li Zhu,Ying Lin,Huaxing Ling,Yuxia Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16105

2021-01-01

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Nursing care can profoundly reduce the risk of emergencies related to cardiac catheterisation. Therefore, identifying nursing-sensitive quality indicators (NSQIs) to evaluate nursing quality is critical for optimal cardiac catheterisation. However, studies on NSQIs for cardiac catheterisation are scarce.OBJECTIVES:This study was conducted to develop a set of NSQIs for cardiac catheterisation.METHODS:Literature retrieval and expert group discussions were conducted to identify potential NSQIs and compile an inquiry questionnaire. Then, Delphi surveys were used to collect opinions from experts in the field of cardiac catheterisation. The consistency of the consultation results formed the basis on which we conducted the next rounds of consultation. Based on the importance given to each NSQI by the consulted experts in the previous round, we determined the weight coefficient of each indicator with the analytic hierarchy process. This study was performed according to the SRQR guidelines.RESULTS:We conducted two rounds of expert inquiry. The recovery rates of the first and second questionnaires were 100% and 66.67%, respectively. The average authoritative coefficients were 0.86 and 0.91. The Kendall W values ranged from 0.214~0.361 (p < .001). Consensus was reached on 3 primary indicators, 8 secondary indicators and 20 tertiary indicators.CONCLUSIONS:A set of NSQIs for cardiac catheterisation was developed. However, the effects of these NSQIs on the evaluation and continuous improvement of nursing quality in cardiac catheterisation need to be verified in clinical practice.
Assessment of Quality Indicators for Acute Myocardial Infarction Management in 28 Countries and Use of Composite Quality Indicators for Benchmarking.

Xavier Rossello,Jesus Medina,Stuart Pocock,Frans Van de Werf,Chee Tang Chin,Nicolas Danchin,Stephen W-L Lee,Yong Huo,Hector Bueno

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872620911853

2020-01-01

European Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care

Abstract:BACKGROUND:The European Society of Cardiology established a set of quality indicators for the management of acute myocardial infarction. Our aim was to evaluate their degree of attainment, prognostic value and potential use for centre benchmarking in a large international cohort.METHODS:Quality indicators were extracted from the long-tErm follow-uP of antithrombotic management patterns In acute CORonary syndrome patients (EPICOR) (555 hospitals, 20 countries in Europe and Latin America, 2010-2011) and EPICOR Asia (218 hospitals, eight countries, 2011-2012) registries, including non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (n=6558) and ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (n=11,559) hospital survivors. The association between implementation rates for each quality indicator and two-year adjusted mortality was evaluated using adjusted Cox models. Composite quality indicators were categorized for benchmarking assessment at different levels.RESULTS:The degree of attainment of the 17 evaluated quality indicators ranged from 13% to 100%. Attainment of most individual quality indicators was associated with two-year survival. A higher compliance with composite quality indicators was associated with lower mortality at centre-, country- and region-level. Moreover, the higher the risk for two-year mortality, the lower the compliance with composite quality indicators.CONCLUSIONS:When EPICOR and EPICOR Asia were conducted, the European Society of Cardiology quality indicators would have been attained to a limited extent, suggesting wide room for improvement in the management of acute myocardial infarction patients. After adjustment for confounding, most quality indicators were associated with reduced two-year mortality and their prognostic value should receive further attention. The two composite quality indicators can be used as a tool for benchmarking either at centre-, country- or world region-level.
Development of quality indicators for hypertension management at the primary health care level in South Africa

Enos Muisaphanda Rampamba,Johanna Catharina Meyer,Brian Godman,Ntodeni Norah Ndwamato,Stephen Mark. Campbell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-024-00966-7

2024-10-15

Journal of Human Hypertension

Abstract:Despite many quality initiatives at the primary health care (PHC) level, little is known about the actual quality of care of patients diagnosed with hypertension in South Africa. This study aimed to develop quality indicators for hypertension management at the PHC level to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, comprising two rounds, was used to develop clear, appropriate, and feasible evidence-based quality indicators for hypertension. In Round 1, a 9-point scale was used by a panel of 11 members to rate clarity and appropriateness of 102 hypertension quality indicator statements, grouped under 9 dimensions of quality hypertension management, using an online MS Excel® spreadsheet. In Round 2, 9 of the same panellists discussed all indicators and rated their appropriateness and feasibility during a remote online, interactive face-to-face MS Teams® meeting. Statements rated ≥7–9 with agreement were defined as either appropriate or feasible. The panel rated 46 hypertension quality indicator statements ≥7–9 with agreement for the appropriate and feasible measurement of the management of hypertension: monitoring ( n = 16), review ( n = 5), lifestyle advice ( n = 9), tests ( n = 7), intermediate outcomes ( n = 6), referrals ( n = 2) and practice/facility structures ( n = 1). No indicator statements were rated both appropriate and feasible for measuring blood pressure levels and treatment. If applied, these indicators would improve monitoring and management of patients with hypertension, patient outcomes, and data quality in South Africa and result in more efficient use of scarce resources. This study can be replicable for improving care of other non-communicable diseases across Africa.

peripheral vascular disease
Current status of treatment of paroxysmal atrial tachycardia.

E. Orgain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-0620(60)80051-5

IF: 11.278

1960-05-01

Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases

Abstract:
Chronic disease IMPACT (chronic disease early detection and improved management in primary care project): An Australian stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

Julia L Jones,Koen Simons,Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis,Natalie G Lumsden,Sanduni Fernando,Maximilian P de Courten,Nicholas Cox,Peter Shane Hamblin,Edward D Janus,Craig L Nelson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231194948

2023-08-14

Abstract:Background: Interrelated chronic vascular diseases (chronic kidney disease (CKD), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD)) are common with high morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess if an electronic-technology-based quality improvement intervention in primary care could improve detection and management of people with and at risk of these diseases. Methods: Stepped-wedge trial with practices randomised to commence intervention in one of five 16-week periods. Intervention included (1) electronic-technology tool extracting data from general practice electronic medical records and generating graphs and lists for audit; (2) education regarding chronic disease and the electronic-technology tool; (3) assistance with quality improvement audit plan development, benchmarking, monitoring and support. De-identified data analysis using R 3.5.1 conducted using Bayesian generalised linear mixed model with practice and time-specific random intercepts. Results: At baseline, eight included practices had 37,946 active patients (attending practice ≥3 times within 2 years) aged ≥18 years. Intervention was associated with increased OR (95% CI) for: kidney health checks (estimated glomerular filtration rate, urine albumin:creatinine ratio (uACR) and blood pressure) in those at risk 1.34 (1.26-1.42); coded diagnosis of CKD 1.18 (1.09-1.27); T2D diagnostic testing (fasting glucose or HbA1c) in those at risk 1.15 (1.08-1.23); uACR in patients with T2D 1.78 (1.56-2.05). Documented eye checks within recommended frequency in patients with T2D decreased 0.85 (0.77-0.96). There were no significant changes in other assessed variables. Conclusions: This electronic-technology-based intervention in primary care has potential to help translate guidelines into practice but requires further refining to achieve widespread improvements across the interrelated chronic vascular diseases.
Association between country preparedness indicators and quality clinical care for cardiovascular disease risk factors in 44 lower- and middle-income countries: A multicountry analysis of survey data

Justine I Davies,Sumithra Krishnamurthy Reddiar,Lisa R Hirschhorn,Cara Ebert,Maja-Emilia Marcus,Jacqueline A Seiglie,Zhaxybay Zhumadilov,Adil Supiyev,Lela Sturua,Bahendeka K Silver,Abla M Sibai,Sarah Quesnel-Crooks,Bolormaa Norov,Joseph K Mwangi,Omar Mwalim Omar,Roy Wong-McClure,Mary T Mayige,Joao S Martins,Nuno Lunet,Demetre Labadarios,Khem B Karki,Gibson B Kagaruki,Jutta M A Jorgensen,Nahla C Hwalla,Dismand Houinato,Corine Houehanou,David Guwatudde,Mongal S Gurung,Pascal Bovet,Brice W Bicaba,Krishna K Aryal,Mohamed Msaidié,Glennis Andall-Brereton,Garry Brian,Andrew Stokes,Sebastian Vollmer,Till Bärnighausen,Rifat Atun,Pascal Geldsetzer,Jennifer Manne-Goehler,Lindsay M Jaacks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003268

2020-11-10

Abstract:Background: Cardiovascular diseases are leading causes of death, globally, and health systems that deliver quality clinical care are needed to manage an increasing number of people with risk factors for these diseases. Indicators of preparedness of countries to manage cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVDRFs) are regularly collected by ministries of health and global health agencies. We aimed to assess whether these indicators are associated with patient receipt of quality clinical care. Methods and findings: We did a secondary analysis of cross-sectional, nationally representative, individual-patient data from 187,552 people with hypertension (mean age 48.1 years, 53.5% female) living in 43 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and 40,795 people with diabetes (mean age 52.2 years, 57.7% female) living in 28 LMICs on progress through cascades of care (condition diagnosed, treated, or controlled) for diabetes or hypertension, to indicate outcomes of provision of quality clinical care. Data were extracted from national-level World Health Organization (WHO) Stepwise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS), or other similar household surveys, conducted between July 2005 and November 2016. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between each quality clinical care outcome and indicators of country development (gross domestic product [GDP] per capita or Human Development Index [HDI]); national capacity for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases ('NCD readiness indicators' from surveys done by WHO); health system finance (domestic government expenditure on health [as percentage of GDP], private, and out-of-pocket expenditure on health [both as percentage of current]); and health service readiness (number of physicians, nurses, or hospital beds per 1,000 people) and performance (neonatal mortality rate). All models were adjusted for individual-level predictors including age, sex, and education. In an exploratory analysis, we tested whether national-level data on facility preparedness for diabetes were positively associated with outcomes. Associations were inconsistent between indicators and quality clinical care outcomes. For hypertension, GDP and HDI were both positively associated with each outcome. Of the 33 relationships tested between NCD readiness indicators and outcomes, only two showed a significant positive association: presence of guidelines with being diagnosed (odds ratio [OR], 1.86 [95% CI 1.08-3.21], p = 0.03) and availability of funding with being controlled (OR, 2.26 [95% CI 1.09-4.69], p = 0.03). Hospital beds (OR, 1.14 [95% CI 1.02-1.27], p = 0.02), nurses/midwives (OR, 1.24 [95% CI 1.06-1.44], p = 0.006), and physicians (OR, 1.21 [95% CI 1.11-1.32], p < 0.001) per 1,000 people were positively associated with being diagnosed and, similarly, with being treated; and the number of physicians was additionally associated with being controlled (OR, 1.12 [95% CI 1.01-1.23], p = 0.03). For diabetes, no positive associations were seen between NCD readiness indicators and outcomes. There was no association between country development, health service finance, or health service performance and readiness indicators and any outcome, apart from GDP (OR, 1.70 [95% CI 1.12-2.59], p = 0.01), HDI (OR, 1.21 [95% CI 1.01-1.44], p = 0.04), and number of physicians per 1,000 people (OR, 1.28 [95% CI 1.09-1.51], p = 0.003), which were associated with being diagnosed. Six countries had data on cascades of care and nationwide-level data on facility preparedness. Of the 27 associations tested between facility preparedness indicators and outcomes, the only association that was significant was having metformin available, which was positively associated with treatment (OR, 1.35 [95% CI 1.01-1.81], p = 0.04). The main limitation was use of blood pressure measurement on a single occasion to diagnose hypertension and a single blood glucose measurement to diagnose diabetes. Conclusion: In this study, we observed that indicators of country preparedness to deal with CVDRFs are poor proxies for quality clinical care received by patients for hypertension and diabetes. The major implication is that assessments of countries' preparedness to manage CVDRFs should not rely on proxies; rather, it should involve direct assessment of quality clinical care.
Identification of core indicators for the integration of a palliative care approach in hospitals: An international Delphi study

Mary Nevin,Sheila Payne,Valerie Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241283540

IF: 5.7133

2024-09-29

Palliative Medicine

Abstract:Palliative Medicine, Ahead of Print. Background:Healthcare providers working in hospitals have significant exposure to patients with palliative care needs. For many patients, these needs often reflect non-specialist rather than specialist palliative care needs. Embedding a palliative care approach in acute hospital-based care however is challenging.Aim:To identify core indicators for the integration of a palliative care approach in hospitals.Design:A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds. Preliminary indicators were identified in a concept analysis of a palliative care approach, and a systematic review of hospital-based healthcare providers' views of a palliative care approach.Participants:An international expert panel of three key stakeholder groups (clinicians, researchers, patients/family members) participated in each Delphi round.Results:The Delphi participants were recruited from 12 countries; 97 individuals responded to round 1, 78 to round 2 and 72 to round 3 (74% overall response rate). Consensus was achieved (defined a priori as >70%) on 32 core indicators of a hospital-based palliative care approach, with five structural indicators (relating to infrastructure and governance), 21 organisational indicators (relating to clinical care processes) and six staff indicators (relating to training and support for healthcare providers).Conclusions:This study offers multi-level guidance for clinical practice, policy and research related to integration of a palliative care approach in hospitals, based on evidence and international consensus from major stakeholder groups. These core indicators provide a means to assess, review and communicate the core elements of a palliative care approach in hospitals.

medicine, general & internal,public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation

Thomas A. Willis,Michelle Collinson,Liz Glidewell,Amanda J. Farrin,Michael Holland,David Meads,Claire Hulme,Duncan Petty,Sarah Alderson,Suzanne Hartley,Armando Vargas-Palacios,Paul Carder,Stella Johnson,Robbie Foy,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003045

2020-02-28

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators.We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89–1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96–1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75–1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39–0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve.In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement.The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (<a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ISRCTN91989345">ISRCTN91989345</a>).

medicine, general & internal
Developing clinical indicators for oncology: the inaugural cancer care indicator set for the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards

Eva Segelov,Christine Carrington,Sanchia Aranda,David Currow,John R Zalcberg,Alexander G Heriot,Linda Mileshkin,John Coutsouvelis,Jeremy L Millar,Brian T Collopy,Jon D Emery,Phoebe Zhang,Simon Cooper,Carmel O’Kane,Janet Wale,Stephen J Hancock,Anthony Sulkowski,John Bashford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51087

2021-05-30

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) sponsored an expert-led, consensus-driven, four-stage process, based on a modified Delphi methodology, to determine a set of clinical indicators as quality measures of cancer service provision in Australia. This was done in response to requests from institutional health care providers seeking accreditation, which were additional and complementary to the existing radiation oncology set. The steering group members comprised multidisciplinary key opinion leaders and a consumer representative. Five additional participants constituted the stakeholder group, who deliberated on the final indicator set.METHODS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: An initial meeting of the steering group scoped the high level nature of the desired set. In stage 2, 65 candidate indicators were identified by a literature review and a search of international metrics. These were ranked by survey, based on ease of data accessibility and collectability and clinical relevance. The top 27 candidates were debated by the stakeholder group and culled to a final set of 16 indicators. A user manual was created with indicators mapped to clinical codes. The indicator set was ratified by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and is now available for use by health care organisations participating in the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. This inaugural cancer clinical indicator set covers high level assessment of various critical processes in cancer service provision in Australia. Regular reviews and updates will ensure usability.CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: This is the inaugural indicator set for cancer care for use across Australia and internationally under the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. Multidisciplinary involvement through a modified Delphi process selected indicators representing both generic and specific aspects of care across the cancer journey pathway and will provide a functional tool to compare health care delivery across multiple settings. It is anticipated that this will drive continual improvement in cancer care provision.

medicine, general & internal

[Electroretinographic changes in senile macular degeneration].

Development and pilot of clinical performance indicators for English ambulance services

Implementing decision aids for cardiovascular disease prevention: stakeholder interviews and case studies in Australian primary care

Developing and evaluating packages to support implementation of quality indicators in general practice: the ASPIRE research programme, including two cluster RCTs

Development of clinically meaningful quality indicators for contemporary lung cancer care, and piloting and evaluation in a retrospective cohort; experiences of the Embedding Research (and Evidence) in Cancer Healthcare (EnRICH) Program

Consented indicators for the evaluation of integrated strategies of community health promotion targeting children and adolescents: results of an eDelphi

Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process

Influence of cyclic fatigue in water on the load-bearing capacity of dental bridges made of zirconia.

Development of quality indicators for care of chronic kidney disease in the primary care setting using electronic health data: a RAND-modified Delphi method

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: An observational study

Clinical governance in primary care groups: the feasibility of deriving evidence-based performance indicators

Development of quality indicators for hypertension, extractable from the electronic health record of the general practitioner: a rand-modified Delphi method

Construction of Nursing-Sensitive Quality Indicators for Cardiac Catheterisation: A Delphi Study and an Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Assessment of Quality Indicators for Acute Myocardial Infarction Management in 28 Countries and Use of Composite Quality Indicators for Benchmarking.

Development of quality indicators for hypertension management at the primary health care level in South Africa

Current status of treatment of paroxysmal atrial tachycardia.

Chronic disease IMPACT (chronic disease early detection and improved management in primary care project): An Australian stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

Association between country preparedness indicators and quality clinical care for cardiovascular disease risk factors in 44 lower- and middle-income countries: A multicountry analysis of survey data

Identification of core indicators for the integration of a palliative care approach in hospitals: An international Delphi study

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation

Developing clinical indicators for oncology: the inaugural cancer care indicator set for the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards