Understanding safer practices in health care: a prologue for the role of indicators

Development of a dementia assessment quality database

OBJECTIVE

Increased focus on the quality of health care requires tools and information to address and improve quality. One tool to evaluate and report the quality of clinical health services is quality indicators based on a clinical database.

METHOD

The Capital Region of Denmark runs a quality database for dementia evaluation in the secondary health system. One volume and seven process quality indicators on dementia evaluations are monitored. Indicators include frequency of demented patients, percentage of patients evaluated within three months, whether the work-up included blood tests, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), brain scan and activities of daily living and percentage of patients treated with anti-dementia drugs. Indicators can be followed over time in an individual clinic. Up to 20 variables are entered to calculate the indicators and to provide risk factor variables for the data analyses.

RESULTS

The database was constructed in 2005 and covers 30% of the Danish population. Data from all consecutive cases evaluated for dementia in the secondary health system in the Capital Region of Denmark are entered. The database has shown that the basic diagnostic work-up programme with MMSE, and a brain scan is performed in almost all patients. Differences in the prevalence of etiological diagnoses indicate differences in the application of the diagnostic criteria. This has initiated a process to harmonize the use of diagnostic criteria and the MMSE including administration guide.

CONCLUSION

Clinical quality indicators based on all patients evaluated for dementia can be used to standardize and harmonize the evaluation process and improve clinical health services.

Managing the scope and impact of root cause analysis recommendations

PURPOSE

Increased public awareness of clinical failure and rising levels of litigation are spurring health policy makers in industrialized countries to mandate that clinicians report and investigate clinical errors and near misses. This paper seeks to understand the value of root cause analysis (RCA) recommendations for practice improvement purposes. The paper presents an analysis of interviews with nine senior health managers who were asked about their views on RCA as practice improvement method.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Interview data were collected as part of a multi-method evaluation consultancy project investigating a local Health Safety Improvement Program. The interview data were discourse analysed and arranged into over-arching themes.

FINDINGS

The analysis reveals rather negative views of the improvement potential of RCA: RCA is subject to too many constraints to be able to produce valuable recommendations; RCA recommendations: are perceived to be of "variable quality"; generate considerable extra work for senior management to do with vetting RCA recommendations; are experienced as contributing in only a limited way to organizational and practice improvement.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

This study focuses on nine interviewees only and presents an analysis of single (not multiple) interviews. However, these nine interviewees fulfil crucial roles in implementing clinical practice improvement initiatives in their respective geographic areas.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The findings suggest that RCA requires much time and negotiation, and that the recommendations produced may not live up to the philosophy of clinical practice improvement's expectations. It may be necessary to reorient the expectations of the power of RCA, or accept that RCA produces communication about clinical processes that would otherwise not have taken place, and whose effects may not be registering for some time to come.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Besides drawing out the implications for RCA as investigative practice, the analysis argues that interviewees' responses harbour indications to suggest that these officials are finding themselves engaged in increasing levels of communicative and emotional labour, in having to manage and compensate for the ambiguities, incommensurabilities and conflicting goals inscribed into "post-bureaucratic" initiatives such as RCA.

Selection of indicators for continuous monitoring of patient safety: recommendations of the project 'safety improvement for patients in Europe'

BACKGROUND

Initiatives to improve patient safety have high priority among health professionals and politicians in most developed countries. Currently, however, assessment of patient safety problems relies mainly on case-based methodologies. The evidence for their efficiency and reproducibility, proving that safety of care has improved with their usage, is questionable. The exact incidence and prevalence of patient safety quality problems are unknown. Therefore, there is a need for firm, evidence-based methods to survey and develop patient safety and derived activities.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to describe a method to select patient safety indicators and present the indicators derived through this process.

METHODS

The patient safety indicators were derived and recommended for use in a formalized consensus process based on literature review, targeted information gathering, expert consultation and rating procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 42 indicators, of which 28 originated from existing international indicator programmes, were selected. The processes and outcome indicators that were recommended for institutional-level use in Europe were 24, covering safety of care aspects such as culture, infections, surgical complications, medication errors, obstetrics, falls and specific diagnostic areas.

CONCLUSION

The patient safety indicators recommended present a set of possible measures of patient safety. One of the future perspectives of implementing patient safety indicators for systematic monitoring is that it will be possible to continuously estimate the prevalence and incidence of patient safety quality problems. The lesson learnt from quality improvement is that it will pay off in terms of improving patient safety.

Measuring the quality of hospital care: an inventory of indicators

BACKGROUND

Development of indicators to measure health-care quality has progressed rapidly. This development has, however, rarely occurred in a systematic fashion, and some aspects of care have received more attention than others. The aim of this study is to identify and classify indicators currently in use to measure the quality of care provided by hospitals, and to identify gaps in current measurement.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken to identify indicator sets. Indicators were included if they related to hospital care and were clearly being collected and reported to an external body. A two-person independent review was undertaken to classify indicators according to aspects of care provision (structure, process or outcome), dimensions of quality (safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient-centredness and equity), and domain of application (hospital-wide, surgical and non-surgical clinical specialities).

RESULTS

383 discrete indicators were identified from 22 source organizations or projects. Of these, 27.2% were relevant hospital-wide, 26.1% to surgical patients and 46.7% to non-surgical specialities, departments or diseases. Cardiothoracic surgery, cardiology and mental health were the specialities with greatest coverage, while nine clinical specialities had fewer than three specific indicators. Processes of care were measured by 54.0% of indicators and outcomes by 38.9%. Safety and effectiveness were the domains most frequently represented, with relatively few indicators measuring the other dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Despite the large number of available indicators, significant gaps in measurement still exist. Development of indicators to address these gaps should be a priority. Work is also required to evaluate whether existing indicators measure what they purport to measure.

Safety is part of quality: a proposal for a continuum in performance measurement

OBJECTIVES

Safer care is a strategic priority for health care organizations worldwide. Yet, the measurement and evaluation of key processes and outcomes associated with safer care remains challenging, even with existing performance measurement indicators. The multi-national Quality Indicator Project (QI Project) data are analysed to [1] document the patterns of safety indicators used between 1999 and 2006 among hospitals in Asia, Europe and the USA; and [2] to identify trends in using both organization-level and patient-level data in hospital performance improvement.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective data are used to ascertain how the use of safety indicators has changed in comparison to other QI Project indicators. 'Continent' rather than 'hospital' is used as the unit of analysis and P-values of the differences in use percentages across Asia, Europe and the USA are calculated.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase in the use of QI Project indicators in Asia between 1999 and 2006. Measured as the mean percentage of usage, the safety versus 'all other' indicators' increase in Asia was 43.7% versus 27% (P < 0.05) and 37.2% versus 24.4% (P < 0.05), respectively, during the study's time period. The European participants used both safety and all other indicators less frequently, 14.7% versus 18% (P < 0.05) and 9.5% versus 19.8% (P < 0.05), respectively. Finally, USA hospitals demonstrated a larger difference in the decrease of QI Project indicator use than European hospitals between the 'safety' and 'all other' indicators, 12.7% decrease for safety indicators and 7.1% for all others (P < 0.05). These findings are consistent with trends reported in a previous study.

CONCLUSION

Traditional performance measures continue to assist hospitals in identifying crucial aspects of safety in the delivery of care. Building on the findings of a previous study, there are emerging trends in the type of measures used in hospitals in Asia, Europe and the USA pursuing the improvement of overall performance. The increasing use of patient-level data specifically, in tandem with organizational level indicators, may signal the continuum of measurement strategies, now still predominantly in the USA but anticipated to be adopted both in Europe and Asia.