Developing a patient and family-centred approach for measuring the quality of injury care: a study protocol

Development of a set of quality indicators in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan with a modified Delphi method

BACKGROUNDS

Few paediatric and perinatal quality indicators (QIs) have been developed in the Japanese setting, and the quality of care is not assured or validated. The aim of this study was to develop QIs in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database and confirm the feasibility and applicability of the indicators using a single-site practice test.

METHODS

We used a RAND-modified Delphi method that integrates evidence review with expert consensus development. QI candidates were generated from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) available in English or Japanese and existing QIs in nine selected paediatric or perinatal conditions. Consensus building was based on independent panel ratings. The performance of QIs was retrospectively assessed using data from an administrative database at the National Children's Hospital. Data between April 2018 and March 2019 were used, while data between April 2019 and March 2021 were also used for selected condition, considering the small number of patients. Each QI was calculated as follows: number of times the indicator was met/number of participants×100.

RESULTS

From the literature review conducted between 2010 and 2020, 124 CPGs and 193 existing indicators were identified to generate QI candidates. Through the consensus-building process, 133 QI candidates were assessed and 79 QIs were accepted. The practice test revealed wide variations in the process-level performance of QIs in four categories: patient safety: median 43.9% (IQR 16.7%-85.6%), general paediatrics: median 98.8% (IQR 84.2%-100%), advanced paediatrics: median 94.4% (IQR 46.0%-100%) and advanced obstetrics: median 80.3% (IQR 59.6%-100%).

CONCLUSIONS

We established 79 QIs for paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database that can be applied to hospitals nationwide. The practice test confirmed the measurability of the developed QIs. Benchmarking these QIs will be an attractive approach to improving the quality of care.

Improving the handover of complex trauma patients by implementing a standardised process

BACKGROUND

Patient handover continues to be an international health priority in the prevention of patient harm. Transitioning patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the ward is complex, particularly for trauma patients, due to the multifaceted aspects of their care requirements as a result of multiple injuries and different speciality teams.

OBJECTIVES/AIM

To design, implement, and evaluate the efficacy of a standardised handover process and tool for the transfer of ICU trauma patients.

METHODS

A multimethod before/after study design was used. This included observations before and after an implemented transfer process and semistructured interviews with ICU and ward nurses caring for trauma patients. Comparisons were made of data before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Eleven patient handovers were observed, and 21 nurses (11 from the ICU and 10 from the ward) were interviewed. Patients and family members were included during the handover following the intervention (n = 0/10 [0%] vs n = 4/11 [36%]) and the ward nurses were asked if they had any concerns (n = 5/10 [50%] vs n = 10/11 [91%]). Improvements in patient observations handed over were reported following the intervention. However, omissions remained in some key areas including patient introduction, patient identity, fluid balance, and allergies/alerts. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the new handover process was perceived advantageous by both ICU and ward nurses because of its structured and comprehensive approach. Identified future improvements included the need for hospital service managers to ensure integration of ICU and ward electronic health record systems.

CONCLUSION

Precise, accurate, and complete handover remains a patient safety concern. Improvements were achieved using a standardised process and handover tool for the transfer of complex trauma patients. Further improvements are required to reduce the failure to hand over essential patient information.

Clinical Performance Measures for Neurocritical Care: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society

BACKGROUND

Performance measures are tools to measure the quality of clinical care. To date, there is no organized set of performance measures for neurocritical care.

METHODS

The Neurocritical Care Society convened a multidisciplinary writing committee to develop performance measures relevant to neurocritical care delivery in the inpatient setting. A formal methodology was used that included systematic review of the medical literature for 13 major neurocritical care conditions, extraction of high-level recommendations from clinical practice guidelines, and development of a measurement specification form.

RESULTS

A total of 50,257 citations were reviewed of which 150 contained strong recommendations deemed suitable for consideration as neurocritical care performance measures. Twenty-one measures were developed across nine different conditions and two neurocritical care processes of care.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first organized Neurocritical Care Performance Measure Set. Next steps should focus on field testing to refine measure criteria and assess implementation.

Family members' experience with in-hospital health care after severe traumatic brain injury: a national multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Family member's experience and satisfaction of health care in the acute care and in-patient rehabilitation are important indicators of the quality of health care services provided to patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objective was to assess family members' experience of the health care provided in-hospital to patients with severe TBI, to relate experiences to family member and patient demographics, patients' function and rehabilitation pathways.

METHODS

Prospective national multicentre study of 122 family members of patients with severe TBI. The family experience of care questionnaire in severe traumatic brain injury (FECQ-TBI) was applied. Independent sample t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the means between 2 or more groups. Paired samples t-tests were used to investigate differences between experience in the acute and rehabilitation phases.

RESULTS

Best family members` experience were found regarding information during the acute phase, poorest scores were related to discharge. A significantly better care experience was reported in the acute phase compared with the rehabilitation phase (p < 0.05). Worst family members` experience was related to information about consequences of the injury. Patient's dependency level (p < 0.05) and transferral to non-specialized rehabilitation were related to a worse family members` experience (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the need of better information to family members of patients with severe TBI in the rehabilitation as well as the discharge phase. The results may be important to improve the services provided to family members and individuals with severe TBI.

Application of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology to a Large Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group Evaluating the Validity and Feasibility of Patient-Centered Standards in Geriatric Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To explore (1) differences in validity and feasibility ratings for geriatric surgical standards across a diverse stakeholder group (surgeons vs. nonsurgeons, health care providers vs. nonproviders, including patient-family, advocacy, and regulatory agencies); (2) whether three multidisciplinary discussion subgroups would reach similar conclusions.

DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING

Primary data (ratings) were reported from 58 stakeholder organizations.

STUDY DESIGN

An adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) process was conducted in May 2016.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Stakeholders self-administered ratings on paper, returned via mail (Round 1) and in-person (Round 2).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In Round 1, surgeons rated standards more critically (91.2 percent valid; 64.9 percent feasible) than nonsurgeons (100 percent valid; 87.0 percent feasible) but increased ratings in Round 2 (98.7 percent valid; 90.6 percent feasible), aligning with nonsurgeons (99.7 percent valid; 96.1 percent feasible). Three parallel subgroups rated validity at 96.8 percent (group 1), 100 percent (group 2), and 97.4 percent (group 3). Feasibility ratings were 76.9 percent (group 1), 96.1 percent (group 2), and 92.2 percent (group 3).

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences in validity and feasibility ratings by health professions, with surgeons rating standards more critically than nonsurgeons. However, three separate discussion subgroups rated a high proportion (96-100 percent) of standards as valid, indicating the RAM can be successfully applied to a large stakeholder group.

Patient Experiences of Trauma Resuscitation

Importance

Patient satisfaction is an increasingly common feature of quality measurement, and patient-centered care is a key aspect of high-quality clinical care. Incorporating patient preferences in an acute context, such as trauma resuscitation, presents distinct challenges; however, to our knowledge, patients' experiences of trauma resuscitation have not been explored.

Objectives

To describe patient experiences of trauma resuscitation and to identify opportunities to improve patient experience without compromising speed or thoroughness.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative, descriptive study was conducted at an urban, academic, level I trauma center. Semistructured interviews and video observations were conducted from May to December 2015. Interview participants were adult English-speaking patients who had experienced trauma resuscitation and were clinically stable with no alteration in consciousness. We recruited interview participants and conducted video observations until thematic saturation was reached, resulting in 30 interviews and 20 observations. Video observation patients did not overlap with interview participants. The purposive sample included equal numbers of violently and nonviolently injured patients. Data were analyzed for thematic content from June 2015 to April 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes reported are themes of patient experience.

Results

Of 30 interview participants, 25 were men (83.3%), and 21 were black (70.0%). Of 20 video observation patients, 16 were men (80.0%), and 17 were black (85.0%). Salient aspects of patient experience of trauma resuscitation included emotional responses, physical experience, nonclinical concerns, treatment and procedures, trauma team members' interactions, communication, and comfort. Participants drew satisfaction from trauma team members' demeanor, expertise, and efficiency and valued clear clinical communication, as well as words of reassurance. Dissatisfaction stemmed from the perceived absence of these attributes and from participants' emotional or physical discomfort. Observation data added insight into the components of care that may have contributed to participants' responses and those aspects of care that were not salient to participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although the urgency of trauma care limits explicit discussion and consideration of patient priorities, we found that patient concerns corresponded well with trauma team goals. Patients perceived trauma team members as competent, efficient, and caring. Focusing on patient communication could further improve patient-centeredness in this setting.

Development of quality indicators for low-risk labor care provided by midwives using a RAND-modified Delphi method

BACKGROUND

In childbirth, most deliveries are low-risk, defined as spontaneous labor at full term without special high-risk facts or complications, especially in high-resource countries where maternal and perinatal mortality rates are very low. Indeed, the majority of mothers and infants have no serious conditions during labor. However, the quality of care provided is not assured, and performance may vary by birthing facility and provider. The overuse of technology in childbirth in some parts of the world is almost certainly based on assumptions like, "something can go wrong at any minute." There is a need to assess the quality of care provided for mothers and infants in low-risk labor. We aimed to develop specific quality indicators for low-risk labor care provided primarily by midwives in Japan.

METHODS

We used a RAND-modified Delphi method, which integrates evidence review with expert consensus development. The procedure comprises five steps: (1) literature review, including clinical practice guidelines, to extract and develop quality indicator candidates; (2) formation of a multidisciplinary panel; (3) independent panel ratings (Round 1); (4) panel meeting and independent panel ratings (Round 2); and (5) independent panel ratings (Round 3). The three independent panel ratings (Rounds 1-3) were held between July and December 2012.

RESULTS

The assembled multidisciplinary panel comprised eight clinicians (two pediatricians, three obstetricians, and three midwives) and three mothers who were nonclinicians. Evidentiary review extracted 166 key recommendations from 32 clinical practice guidelines, and 31 existing quality indicators were added. After excluding duplicate recommendations and quality indicators, the panel discussed 25 candidate indicators. Of these, 18 were adopted, one was modified, six were not adopted, and four were added during the meeting, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We established 23 quality indicators for low-risk labor care provided by midwives in labor units in Japan.

Family Involvement in Quality Improvement: From Bedside Advocate to System Advisor

Family involvement in newborn intensive care quality improvement dates back to the 1980s. In recent years, there has been an evolution of support for family partnerships at the bedside, transforming parents from being passively present to being active and engaged caregivers and team members. Through those same efforts, a transformational understanding of the power of the family perspective in system design and improvement has occurred. Even with the progression and deepening of this involvement, opportunities exist to learn from families and to improve the quality of neonatal care as a result of the unique family perspective.

Development and Validation of Quality Criteria for Providing Patient- and Family-centered Injury Care

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the content validity of quality criteria for providing patient- and family-centered injury care.

BACKGROUND

Quality criteria have been developed for clinical injury care, but not patient- and family-centered injury care.

METHODS

Using a modified Research AND Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 16 patients, family members, injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care identified from patient and family focus groups. The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 46 criteria were rated and revised by the panel over 4 rounds of review producing 14 criteria related to clinical care (n = 4; transitions of care, pain management, patient safety, provider competence), communication (n = 3; information for patients/families; communication of discharge plans to patients/families, communication between hospital and community providers), holistic care (n = 4; patient hygiene, kindness and respect, family access to patient, social and spiritual support) and end-of-life care (n = 3; decision making, end-of-life care, family follow-up). Medical directors, managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of responses) for patient- and family-centered injury care. Fewer centers rated family access to the patient (80%) and family follow-up after patient death (65%) to be important criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Fourteen-candidate quality criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care were developed and shown to have content validity. These may be used to guide quality improvement practices.

The family experiences of in-hospital care questionnaire in severe traumatic brain injury (FECQ-TBI): a validation study

BACKGROUND

Family members are important for support and care of their close relative after severe traumas, and their experiences are vital health care quality indicators. The objective was to describe the development of the Family Experiences of in-hospital Care Questionnaire for family members of patients with severe Traumatic Brain Injury (FECQ-TBI), and to evaluate its psychometric properties and validity.

METHODS

The design of the study is a Norwegian multicentre study inviting 171 family members. The questionnaire developmental process included a literature review, use of an existing instrument (the parent experience of paediatric care questionnaire), focus group with close family members, as well as expert group judgments. Items asking for family care experiences related to acute wards and rehabilitation were included. Several items of the paediatric care questionnaire were removed or the wording of the items was changed to comply with the present purpose. Questions covering experiences with the inpatient rehabilitation period, the discharge phase, the family experiences with hospital facilities, the transfer between departments and the economic needs of the family were added. The developed questionnaire was mailed to the participants. Exploratory factor analyses were used to examine scale structure, in addition to screening for data quality, and analyses of internal consistency and validity.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was returned by 122 (71%) of family members. Principal component analysis extracted six dimensions (eigenvalues > 1.0): acute organization and information (10 items), rehabilitation organization (13 items), rehabilitation information (6 items), discharge (4 items), hospital facilities-patients (4 items) and hospital facilities-family (2 items). Items related to the acute phase were comparable to items in the two dimensions of rehabilitation: organization and information. All six subscales had high Cronbach's alpha coefficients >0.80. The construct validity was confirmed.

CONCLUSION

The FECQ-TBI assesses important aspects of in-hospital care in the acute and rehabilitation phases, as seen from a family perspective. The psychometric properties and the construct validity of the questionnaire were good, hence supporting the use of the FECQ-TBI to assess quality of care in rehabilitation departments.

Living with Amputation: Anxiety and Depression Correlates

INTRODUCTION

Trauma accounts for 16% of the total burden of disease in the world, making it a leading cause of morbidity and mortality especially in the developing nations. India represents about 10% (225million) of the total world workforce in agriculture. With the evolution of new machinery and better techniques of agriculture, there has been a substantial increase in the associated injuries. Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress are among the predictors of poor quality of life (QOL).

AIM

This study was aimed to assess and correlate of traumatic amputation on the patient's mental health in the Northern Indian rural setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study included subjects who had undergone traumatic amputations. A pre-tested, semi-structured questionnaire was administered to each study participant after an informed verbal consent. The questionnaire had two parts. The first part gathered socio-personal and the disability related information from the patient and the second part included a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

The mean anxiety and depression scores were 9.10±5.7 and 3.44±3.42, respectively. The length of original inpatient stay, people at hand for help, number of hospitalizations, number of follow ups per year, type of family (nuclear versus joint), pain perception, optimism, rehabilitation satisfaction and lower limb amputations correlated significantly with anxiety levels in the patients. The depression levels correlated significantly only with perception of pain.

CONCLUSION

The amputees have a large number of psychosocial concerns which need to be addressed to provide a holistic care and a better QOL. It is essential to sensitize the community, the health care providers and the patient's family to the additional psychosocial needs of the amputee.

The use of cognitive interviews to revise the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM)

PURPOSE

The "Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure" is the first measure of patient experiences with overall injury care. The objective of this study was to use cognitive interviews to inform revision of the measure into a parsimonious set of items that function as intended, in preparation for multicenter testing.

METHODS

Concurrent and retrospective cognitive interviews with injured patients (n = 17) and family members (n = 13) using semi-structured interview guides. Responses were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Six broad themes were identified and guided revisions: (1) participants did not have the information to answer items (n = 9); (2) items were ambiguous or were inconsistently interpreted (n = 13); (3) items did not measure the intended constructs (n = 6); (4) items included assumptions about healthcare processes (n = 4); (5) items measured non-priority aspects of injury care (n = 8); and (6) items were redundant (n = 5). Two issues resulted in key conceptual and content changes: participants' difficulty to evaluate pre-hospital, emergency department, and intensive care unit services due to recall issues and the challenge to evaluate the effectiveness and equity of care. In total, 39 items were deleted, 28 new items developed, and the final instrument included 63 items.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results informed changes to item content, format, and response options. This study highlights key issues to consider when incorporating patient/family perspectives into quality measurement, most notably, that few participants can assess the quality of care in the pre-hospital and emergency department phases of care and that novel methods are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and equity of care.

Establishing components of high-quality injury care: Focus groups with patients and patient families

BACKGROUND

Each year, injuries affect 700 million people worldwide, more than 5 million people die of injuries, and 68,000 survivors remain permanently impaired. Half of all critically injured patients do not receive recommended care, and medical errors are common. Little is known about the aspects of injury care that are important to patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of patients and families affected by injury on desired components of injury care in the hospital setting.

METHODS

With the use of a grounded theory approach, this qualitative study involved focus groups with injured patients, family members of survivors, and bereaved family members from four Canadian trauma (injury care) centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight participants included injured patients (n = 16), family members of survivors (n = 13), and bereaved family members (n = 9) across four trauma (injury care) centers in different jurisdictions. Participants articulated numerous themes reflecting important components of injury care organized across three domains as follows: clinical care (staff availability, professionalism, physical comfort, adverse events), holistic care (patient wellness, respect for patient and family, family access to patient, family wellness, hospital facilities, supportive care), and communication and information (among staff, with or from staff, content, delivery, and timing). Bereaved family members commented on decision making and end-of-life processes. Subthemes were revealed in most of these themes. Trends by site or type of participant were not identified.

CONCLUSION

The framework of patient- and family-derived components of quality injury care could be used by health care managers and policy makers to guide quality improvement efforts. Further research is needed to extend and validate these components among injured patients and families elsewhere. Translating these components into quality indicators and blending those with measures that reflect a provider perspective may offer a comprehensive means of assessing injury care.

Health outcome after major trauma: what are we measuring?

Importance

Trauma is a global disease and is among the leading causes of disability in the world. The importance of outcome beyond trauma survival has been recognised over the last decade. Despite this there is no internationally agreed approach for assessment of health outcome and rehabilitation of trauma patients.

Objective

To systematically examine to what extent outcomes measures evaluate health outcomes in patients with major trauma.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from 2006–2012) were searched for studies evaluating health outcome after traumatic injuries.

Study selection and data extraction

Studies of adult patients with injuries involving at least two body areas or organ systems were included. Information on study design, outcome measures used, sample size and outcomes were extracted. The World Health Organisation International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) were used to evaluate to what extent outcome measures captured health impacts.

Results

34 studies from 755 studies were included in the review. 38 outcome measures were identified. 21 outcome measures were used only once and only five were used in three or more studies. Only 6% of all possible health impacts were captured. Concepts related to activity and participation were the most represented but still only captured 12% of all possible concepts in this domain. Measures performed very poorly in capturing concepts related to body function (5%), functional activities (11%) and environmental factors (2%).

Conclusion

Outcome measures used in major trauma capture only a small proportion of health impacts. There is no inclusive classification for measuring disability or health outcome following trauma. The ICF may provide a useful framework for the development of a comprehensive health outcome measure for trauma care.