Nursing-sensitive quality indicators for quality improvement in Norwegian nursing homes - a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Use of nursing-sensitive quality indicators (QIs) is one way to monitor the quality of care in nursing homes (NHs). The aim of this study was to develop a consensus list of nursing-sensitive QIs for Norwegian NHs.

METHODS

A narrative literature review followed by a non-in-person, two-round, six-step modified Delphi survey was conducted. A five-member project group was established to draw up a list of nursing-sensitive QIs from a preliminary list of 24 QIs selected from Minimum Data Set (2.0) (MDS) and the international Resident Assessment Instrument for Long-Term Care Facilities (interRAI LTCF). We included scientific experts (researchers), clinical experts (healthcare professionals in NHs), and experts of experience (next-of-kin of NH residents). The experts rated nursing-sensitive QIs in two rounds on a seven-point Likert scale. Consensus was based on median value and level of dispersion. Analyses were conducted for four groups: 1) all experts, 2) scientific experts, 3) clinical experts, and 4) experts of experience.

RESULTS

The project group drew up a list of 20 nursing-sensitive QIs. Nineteen QIs were selected from MDS/interRAI LTCF and one ('systematic medication review') from the Norwegian quality assessment system IPLOS ('Statistics linked to individual needs of care'). In the first and second Delphi round, 44 experts (13 researchers, 17 healthcare professionals, 14 next-of-kin) and 28 experts (8 researchers, 10 healthcare professionals, 10 next-of-kin) participated, respectively. The final consensus list consisted of 16 nursing-sensitive QIs, which were ranked in this order by the 'all expert group': 1) systematic medication review, 2) pressure ulcers, 3) behavioral symptoms, 4) pain, 5) dehydration, 6) oral/dental health problems, 7) urinary tract infection, 8) fecal impaction, 9) depression, 10) use of aids that inhibit freedom of movement, 11) participation in activities of interest, 12) participation in social activities, 13) decline in activities of daily living, 14) weight loss, 15) falls, and 16) hearing loss without the use of hearing aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary experts were able to reach consensus on 16 nursing-sensitive QIs. The results from this study can be used to implement QIs in Norwegian NHs, which can improve the quality of care.

Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical diabetes consultations: the DiaPROM randomised controlled pilot trial

OBJECTIVE

To pilot test the proposed DiaPROM trial components and address uncertainties associated with conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether such a trial is feasible.

DESIGN

Two-arm pilot RCT.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥18-39 years, with minimum 1 year type 1 diabetes duration, attending outpatient follow-up. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, severe cognitive, somatic or psychiatric conditions and impaired vision.

RANDOMISATION AND INTERVENTION

All participants completed electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) prior to the annual diabetes consultation. Using computer-generated block-randomisation without blinding, we assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio stratified by sex to receive standard care or an intervention. Physicians reviewed diabetes distress scores (Problem Areas In Diabetes scale) and referred individuals with scores ≥30 or single item(s) ≥3 to minimum two diabetes nurse consultations where reported problems were reviewed and discussed.

OUTCOMES

Recruitment and retention rates; participants perceptions about intervention components. Variance and estimated between-group differences in follow-up scores (Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), WHO 5-Well-being Index, Perceived Competence for Diabetes Scale and glycaemic control) and DDS correlation with baseline scores, to assist sample size calculations.

RESULTS

We randomised 80 participants to the control or intervention arm (one participant was later excluded). 23/39 intervention arm participants qualified for additional consultations and 17 attended. 67/79 attended the 12-month follow-up (15.2% attrition); 5/17 referred to additional consultations were lost to follow-up (29.4% attrition). Participants reported PROMs as relevant (84.6%) and acceptable (97.4%) but rated the usefulness of consultations as moderate to low. Baseline mean±SD DDS score was 2.1±0.69; DDS SD was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.86) at follow-up; correlation between baseline and follow-up DDS scores was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7 to 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The pilot trial revealed need for intervention modifications ahead of a full-scale trial to evaluate use of PROMs in diabetes consultations. Specifically, participant acceptability and intervention implementation need further investigation.