Quality indicators for musculoskeletal injury management in the emergency department: a systematic review

Clinical pharmacy key performance indicators for hospital inpatient setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measures used to monitor the quality of health services. Implementation guidelines for clinical pharmacy services (CPS) do not specify KPIs.

AIM

To assess the quality of the studies that have developed KPIs for CPS in inpatient hospital settings.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted by searching in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, supplemented with citation analyses and grey literature searches, to retrieve studies addressing the development of KPIs in CPS for hospital inpatients. Exclusions comprised drug- or disease-specific studies and those not written in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. The Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument assessed methodological quality. Domain scores and an overall score were calculated using an equal-weight principle. KPIs were classified into structure, process, and outcome categories. The protocol is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KS2G3 .

RESULTS

We included thirteen studies that collectively developed 225 KPIs. Merely five studies scored over 50% on the AIRE instrument, with domains #3 (scientific evidence) and #4 (formulation and usage) displaying low scores. Among the KPIs, 8.4% were classified as structure, 85.8% as process, and 5.8% as outcome indicators. The overall methodological quality did not exhibit a clear association with a major focus on outcomes. None of the studies provided benchmarking reference values.

CONCLUSION

The KPIs formulated for evaluating CPS in hospital settings primarily comprised process measures, predominantly suggested by pharmacists, with inadequate evidence support, lacked piloting or validation, and consequently, were devoid of benchmarking reference values.

First Provider Seen for an Acute Episode of Low Back Pain Influences Subsequent Health Care Utilization

OBJECTIVE

Costs associated with low back pain (LBP) continue to rise. Despite numerous clinical practice guidelines, the evaluation and treatments for LBP are variable and largely depend on the individual provider. As yet, little attention has been given to the first choice of provider. Early research indicates that the choice of first provider and the timing of interventions for LBP appear to influence utilization. We sought to examine the association between the first provider seen and health care utilization.

METHODS

Using 2015-2018 data from a large insurer, this retrospective analysis focused on patients (29,806) seeking care for a new episode of LBP. The study identified the first provider chosen and examined the following year of medical utilization. Cox proportional hazards models were calculated using inverse probability weighting on propensity scores to evaluate the time to event and the relationship to the first choice of provider.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was the timing and use of health care resources. Total health care use was lowest in those who first sought care with chiropractic care or physical therapy. Highest health care use was seen in those patients who chose the emergency department.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there appears to be an association between the first choice of provider and future health care use. Chiropractic care and physical therapy provide nonpharmacologic and nonsurgical, guideline-based interventions. The use of physical therapists and chiropractors as entry points into the health system appears related to a decrease in immediate and long-term use of health resources. This study expands the existing body of literature and provides a compelling case for the influence of the first provider on an acute episode of LBP.

IMPACT

The first provider seen for an acute episode of LBP influences immediate treatment decisions, the trajectory of a specific patient episode, and future health care choices in the management of LBP.

Developing key performance indicators for the Canadian chiropractic profession: a modified Delphi study

Background

The purpose of this study is to develop a list of performance indicators to assess the status of the chiropractic profession in Canada.

Method

We conducted a 4-round modified Delphi technique (March 2018–January 2020) to reach consensus among experts and stakeholders on key status indicators for the chiropractic profession using online questionnaires. During the first round, experts suggested indicators for preidentified themes. Through the following two rounds, the importance and feasibility of each indicator was rated on an 11-point Likert scale, and their related potential sources of data identified. In the final round, provincial stakeholders were recruited to rate the importance of the indicators within the 90th percentile and identified those most important to their organisation.

Results

The first round generated 307 preliminary indicators of which 42 were selected for the remaining rounds, and eleven were preferentially selected by most of the provincial stakeholders. Experts agreed the feasibility of all indicators was high, and that data could be collected through a combination of data obtained from professional liability insurance records and survey(s) of the general population, patients, and chiropractors.

Conclusions

A set of performance indicators to assess the status of the Canadian chiropractic profession emerged from a scientific and stakeholder consensus.

Differences in Outcomes between Patellar Dislocations Managed in Emergent versus Non-Emergent Care Settings

Patellar dislocations occur at a much higher rate in military than civilian populations. Past population-level studies have shown that surgical management is as good as or superior to conservative care and may reduce future reoccurrences. Although in acute cases and in civilian clinics, patellar dislocations are usually managed first in an emergent care setting, previous work suggests this can lead to increased costs. This study compared differences in downstream care type and intensity of services based on whether initial care occurred in emergent or non-emergent care settings. In our sample of 1,523 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries with patellar dislocation and 2-year follow-up, we found non-significant differences in costs, intensity of services, and rates of surgical repair regardless of whether the patient was initially seen in an emergent versus non-emergent care setting. Although we found significant increases in the use of imaging, patellar dislocation-related medical visits, and frequency of closed treatment approaches in emergent care settings, these values were very small and likely not clinically significant. These findings, which included all the patellar dislocations reported across the entire MHS in a 24-month period, suggest that neither emergent nor non-emergent care settings are likely to influence the long-term care received by the individual.

Auditing integrated stroke care to support quality improvement activities: development of a peer-to-peer audit framework

Purpose

To organize stroke care, multiple stakeholders work closely together in integrated stroke care services (ISCS). However, even a well-developed integrated care program needs a continuous quality improvement (CQI) cycle. The current paper aims to describe the development of a unique peer-to-peer audit framework, the development model for integrated care (DMIC), the Dutch stroke care standard and benchmark indicators for stroke.

Design/methodology/approach

A group of experts was brought together in 2016 to discuss the aims and principles of a national audit framework. The steering group quality assurance (SGQA) consisted of representatives of a diversity of professions in the field of stroke care in the Netherlands, including managers, nurses, medical specialists and paramedics.

Findings

Auditors, coordinators and professionals evaluated the framework, agreed on that the framework was easy to use and valued the interesting and enjoyable audits, the compliments, feedback and fruitful insights. Participants consider that a quality label may help to overcome necessity issues and have health care insurers on board. Finally, a structured improvement plan after the audit is needed.

Originality/value

An audit offers fruitful insights into the functioning of an ISCS and the collaboration therein. Best practices and points of improvement are revealed and can fuel collaboration and the development of partnerships. Innovative cure and care may lead to an increasing area of support among professionals in the ISCS and consequently lead to improved quality of delivered stroke care.

Evaluation of outcome relevance of quality indicators in the emergency department (ENQuIRE): study protocol for a prospective multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Quality of emergency department (ED) care affects patient outcomes substantially. Quality indicators (QIs) for ED care are a major challenge due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, health care structures and processes in Germany. Although a number of quality measures are already in use, there is a paucity of data on the importance of these QIs on medium-term and long-term outcomes. The evaluation of outcome relevance of quality indicators in the emergency department study (ENQuIRE) aims to identify and investigate the relevance of QIs in the ED on patient outcomes in a 12-month follow-up.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is a prospective non-interventional multicentre cohort study conducted in 15 EDs throughout Germany. Included are all patients in 2019, who were ≥18 years of age, insured at the Techniker Krankenkasse (statutory health insurance (SHI)) and gave their written informed consent to the study.The primary objective of the study is to assess the effect of selected quality measures on patient outcome. The data collected for this purpose comprise medical records from the ED treatment, discharge (claims) data from hospitalised patients, a patient questionnaire to be answered 6-8 weeks after emergency admission, and outcome measures in a 12-month follow-up obtained as claims data from the SHI.Descriptive and analytical statistics will be applied to provide summaries about the characteristics of QIs and associations between quality measures and patient outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval of the leading ethics committee at the Medical Faculty of the University of Magdeburg (reference number 163/18 from 19 November 2018) has been obtained and adapted by responsible local ethics committees.The findings of this work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations as conference contributions (abstracts, poster or oral presentations).Moreover, results will be discussed with clinical experts and medical associations before being proposed for implementation into the quality management of EDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00015203); Pre-results.

Evaluation of quality indicators for management of the National School Feeding Program in Brazil: a systematic review

This article aims to identify studies that developed quality indicator for the management of the National School Feeding Program (PNAE, in Brazilian context) and to critically appraise the properties of their instruments. Systematic review using Scopus, Lilacs, Pubmed and Web of Science for data collection. The search was limited to studies between 2009 and 2019. The search strategy included search terms related to school feeding, program evaluation, and indicator. The indicators were evaluated using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation instrument. The search identified 1,355 studies, of which 14 were potentially relevant records and 10 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies used a literature review with consensus techniques in the development of the instrument and a frame work format to evaluate the PNAE. None of them presented evidence of validity of the instrument. The highest level was achieved on the domain 'Purpose, relevance and organizational context', followed by 'Stakeholder involvement', 'Additional evidence, formulation and usage', and 'Scientific evidence'. This review found gaps in the methodology of studies that had developed quality indicators for the management of PNAE. Future development of these instruments should include validity evidence.

Musculoskeletal injury quality outcome indicators for the emergency department

High standards of care for musculoskeletal injuries presenting to emergency departments (ED) must be maintained despite financial constraints, the model of care in place, or the pressure to reach time-based performance measures. Outcome quality indicators (QIs) provide a tangible way of assessing and improving the outcomes of health-care delivery. This study aimed to develop a set of outcome QIs for musculoskeletal injuries in the ED that are meaningful, valid, feasible to collect, simple to use for clinical quality improvement and chosen by experts in the field. The study used a multi-phase mixed methods design, commencing with a systematic review of available outcome QIs. An expert panel then developed a set of preliminary QIs based on the available scientific evidence. Prospective observational data collection was undertaken across eight EDs with subsequent retrospective chart audits, follow-up phone calls and audit of administrative databases. After statistical analysis, validated results were presented to the expert panel who discussed, refined and formally voted on a final outcome QI set. A total of 41 preliminary outcome QIs were field tested in EDs, with data collected on 633 patients. Using the field study results, the expert panel voted 11 outcome QIs into the final set. These covered effectiveness of pain management, timeliness to discharge, re-presentations to the ED and unplanned visits to health professionals in the community, missed injuries, opioids side effects and the patient experience. An evidence-based set of outcome quality indicators is now available to support clinical quality improvement of musculoskeletal injury care in the ED setting.

Process quality indicators for musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Measuring quality of care for musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED is important given their prevalence, variations in care, the associated morbidity and financial impacts and pressure to achieve time-based performance measures. Process quality indicators (QIs) provide a quantitative method to measure the actions taken during healthcare delivery. This study aimed to develop a set of process QIs to measure the quality of care for musculoskeletal injuries in the ED.

METHODS

A multiphase mixed-methods study was undertaken from 2015 to 2018, commencing with a systematic review to identify existing musculoskeletal QIs. This review, along with current evidence regarding musculoskeletal injury management in the ED, informed an expert panel who developed a preliminary set of process QIs. The preliminary set was field tested at eight EDs in Queensland, Australia, to determine the validity, reliability, feasibility and usefulness of each QI. Prospective observational data collection and retrospective chart audits were used to score the process QIs. These results were presented to the expert panel who determined a final QI set.

RESULTS

A total of 633 patients were recruited and 36 process QIs included in the final set. The QIs covered important domains of pain assessment and management, history taking and physical examination, appropriateness and timeliness of imaging, fracture management, mobility, patient information and discharge considerations including safety and referrals. The best performing QIs included the use of opioid sparing analgesics and avoiding prescription of 'just in case' opioids at discharge. The poorest performing QIs included the completion of spinal red flag questioning and referrals for fragility fractures.

CONCLUSION

An evidence and best practice-based set of QIs has been developed to allow EDs to assess and quantify the quality of care for musculoskeletal presentations. This will allow EDs to compare and benchmark, leading to the optimisation of care for patients.

Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review

Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary aim was to compose a set of methodologically sound quality indicators for the evaluation of hip fracture care in clinical practice. A literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines and an internet search were performed to identify hip fracture quality indicators. The indicators were subdivided into process, structure, and outcome indicators. The methodological quality of the indicators was judged using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. For structure and process indicators, the construct validity was assessed. Sixteen publications, nine audits and five guidelines were included. In total, 97 unique quality indicators were found: 9 structure, 63 process, and 25 outcome indicators. Since detailed methodological information about the indicators was lacking, the AIRE instrument could not be applied. Seven indicators correlated with an outcome measure. A set of nine quality indicators was extracted from the literature, audits, and guidelines. Many quality indicators are described and used. Not all of them correlate with outcomes of care and have been assessed methodologically. As methodological evidence is lacking, we recommend the extracted set of nine indicators to be used as the starting point for further clinical research. Future research should focus on assessing the clinimetric properties of the existing quality indicators.

Quality indicators for care of osteoarthritis in primary care settings: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Despite the high prevalence of osteoarthritis and the prominence of primary care in managing this condition, there is no systematic summary of quality indicators applicable for osteoarthritis care in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (i) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (ii) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Applicable quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.

RESULTS

The search revealed 4526 studies, of which 32 studies were reviewed in detail and 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and use of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 20 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlapped conceptually or in content.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of developing quality indicators was methodologically suboptimal in most cases. There is a need to develop specific process, structure and outcome measures for adults with osteoarthritis using appropriate methodology.

Quality indicators for community care for older people: A systematic review

Background

Health care systems that succeed in preventing long term care and hospital admissions of frail older people may substantially save on their public spending. The key might be found in high-quality care in the community. Quality Indicators (QIs) of a sufficient methodological level are a prerequisite to monitor, compare, and improve care quality. This systematic review identified existing QIs for community care for older people and assessed their methodological quality.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and selected by two reviewers independently. Eligible publications described the development or application of QIs to assess the quality of community care for older people. Information about the QIs, the study sample, and specific setting was extracted. The methodological quality of the QI sets was assessed with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A score of 50% or higher on a domain was considered to indicate high methodological quality.

Results

Searches resulted in 25 included articles, describing 17 QI sets with 567 QIs. Most indicators referred to care processes (80%) and measured clinical issues (63%), mainly about follow-up, monitoring, examinations and treatment. About two-third of the QIs focussed on specific disease groups. The methodological quality of the indicator sets varied considerably. The highest overall level was achieved on the domain ‘Additional evidence, formulation and usage’ (51%), followed by ‘Scientific evidence’ (39%) and ‘Stakeholder involvement’ (28%).

Conclusion

A substantial number of QIs is available to assess the quality of community care for older people. However, generic QIs, measuring care outcomes and non-clinical aspects are relatively scarce and most QI sets do not meet standards of high methodological quality. This study can support policy makers and clinicians to navigate through a large number of QIs and select QIs for their purposes.

PROSPERO Registration: 2014:CRD42014007199

Quality indicators in the care of older persons in the emergency department: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to assess the methodological quality of existing quality indicators (QIs) for the emergency department (ED) care of older persons.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and grey literature were searched. Articles were included if they addressed ED care of persons aged ≥65 years and defined a QI amenable to influence by ED providers. The methodological quality of QIs was assessed using relevant items from the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation and the QUALIFY tools.

RESULTS

Sixty-one articles were included in the review, with identification of 50 QIs meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Thirty-six of fifty ED QIs for older persons were process indicators. The appraisal instruments' total ratings ranged from 39 to 67%, with only 18 QIs scoring 50% or more for all five domains.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for a balanced, methodologically robust set of QIs for care of older persons in the ED.

Quality indicators for care of depression in primary care settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.

RESULTS

The search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.

Developing quality indicators for the care of patients with musculoskeletal injuries in the Emergency Department: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal injuries are a common presentation to the Emergency Department (ED). The quality of care provided is important to the patients, clinicians, organisations and purchasers of care. In the context of the increasing burden of musculoskeletal disease, quality of care needs to occur despite financial impacts, variations in care, and pressure to reach time-based performance measures. This study aims to develop a suite of evidence-based quality indicators (QI) which will provide a measure of the quality of care for patients with musculoskeletal injuries in the ED.

METHODS

This study will utilise a multi-phase mixed methods protocol, commencing with a systematic review of the literature to identify and critically appraise existing QIs for musculoskeletal injuries in the ED. The study will then build on the gaps identified in the review to develop a suite of preliminary QIs, in accordance with established research methodology under the governance of an expert panel. The developed QI set will then be field-tested for feasibility and validity in selected EDs. After field-testing, the suite will be refined in consultation with the expert panel and finalised using a formal voting process.

DISCUSSION

The assessment of performance against QIs provides a quantitative measure for the quality of care provided to patients, to identify and target quality improvement activities. The QIs developed through this study will be evidence-based and balanced across the areas of structures, processes and outcomes. The rigorous methodology used to develop and test the QIs will result in QIs that are meaningful, valid, feasible to collect and efficiently measurable, amenable to improvement, and selected by experts in the emergency medicine field. The final QI suite will have applications across EDs that affords comparison, benchmarking and optimisation of emergency care for patients.

Quality Indicators in Cranial Neurosurgery: Which Are Presently Substantiated? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Owing to the rising costs of health care delivery, the quality of delivered care has become a central issue across all medical specialties. Consequently, there is increasing pressure to create standardized frameworks for measuring quality of care. In the field of cranial neurosurgery, health care administrators have begun applying quality measures that are easily available but might be inaccurate in measuring the quality of care.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review on quality indicators (QIs) that are presently used in this field, aiming to elucidate which QIs are scientifically founded and thus potentially justifiable as measures of quality. We found a total of 8 QIs, and methodologically evaluated published studies according to the AIRE (Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation) criteria. These criteria include length of hospital stay, all-cause readmission rate, and unplanned reoperation rate.

RESULTS

Our review indicates that these presently used or proposed QIs for neurosurgery lack scientific rigor and are restricted to rudimentary measures, and that further research is necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgeons need to define their own QIs and actively participate in the validation of these QIs to provide the best possible patient outcomes. More reliable clinical registries, obligatory for all neurosurgical services, should be established as a basis for establishing such indicators, with risk adjustment being an important element of any such indicators.

Efficacy of knee joint aspiration in patients with acute ACL injury in the emergency department

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of joint aspiration on the sensitivity of physical examination for diagnosing acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) lesion in the second outpatient-department (OPD) follow-up referred from emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This retrospective study included sixty patients underwent ACL reconstruction with initial visit at ED. They were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of joint aspiration at ED. All participants were referred to second OPD follow-up within 7-14days after the injury. Clinical manifestation (including visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, range of motion (ROM), and severity of knee effusion) and physical examination (Lachman test and pivot shift test) were checked in ED and the second OPD follow-up.

RESULTS

The group of patients with joint aspiration (G1) showed substantial decreases in mean values of VAS for pain (p=0.005), ROM (p=0.001), and effusion level (p<0.001), even higher VAS and effusion level and lower ROM at the initial visit of ED than the other group (G2). The sensitivity of positive Lachman and pivot shift test was significantly (p<0.05) increased following knee joint aspiration. Positive Lachman test was recorded at 76.5% in the second follow-up in G1, which was significantly (p=0.047) higher than that (47.6%) in G2. The percentage of positive pivot shift test was recorded at 76.5% in the second follow-up in G1, which as significantly (p<0.001) higher than that (31.0%) in G2.

CONCLUSIONS

Knee joint aspiration in acute ACL injury with suspected hemarthrosis could be considered as a diagnostic procedure. Joint aspiration in early medical attendance might be able to lower pain scores or raise the sensitivity of physical examination for diagnosing acute ACL injury at follow up visit in orthopedic outpatient department.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study III.