scholarly journals 1423 Quality and Efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Discussion Quality Assessment Tools and Checklists: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Brown ◽  
A Young ◽  
R Rymell
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Practical Method ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
High Standards ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Aim MDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the cancer incidence and complexity of treatments both increasing, demand for MDT discussion is growing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This review aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement. Method MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. PRISMA methodology was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool/checklist, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type. Results The search returned 6888 results. 17 studies were included, and 6 different tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2% to 92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork. Conclusions Several tools for assessing and guiding MDT discussions are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement.

scholarly journals Quality and Efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Quality Assessment Tools and Discussion Checklists: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
George T F Brown ◽  
Hilary L Bekker ◽  
Alastair L Young
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Practical Method ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
High Standards ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background MDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the incidence of cancer on the rise, demand for MDT discussion is increasing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This reviews aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement. Methods Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. The PRISMA model was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type. Results The search returned 6888 results. 17 studies were included. In total 6 tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2–92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork. Conclusions Several tools for assessment and guidance of MDTs are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement.

Assessing Medical Evidence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Stegenga
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Methods ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Methods

Medical scientists employ ‘quality assessment tools’ to assess evidence from medical research, especially from randomized trials. These tools are designed to take into account methodological details of studies, including randomization, subject allocation concealment, and other features of studies deemed relevant to minimizing bias. There are dozens of such tools available. They differ widely from each other, and empirical studies show that they have low inter-rater reliability and low inter-tool reliability. This is an instance of a more general problem called here the underdetermination of evidential significance. Disagreements about the quality of evidence can be due to different—but in principle equally good—weightings of the methodological features that constitute quality assessment tools. Thus, the malleability of empirical research in medicine is deep: in addition to the malleability of first-order empirical methods, such as randomized trials, there is malleability in the tools used to evaluate first-order methods.

scholarly journals Implementation of a Hospital-Based Quality Assessment Program for Rectal Cancer

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e120-e129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Hendren ◽  
Ellen McKeown ◽  
Arden M. Morris ◽  
Sandra L. Wong ◽  
Mary Oerline ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Registry Data ◽  
Tumor Registry ◽  
Assessment Program

A program linking tumor registry data to quality-improvement data for rectal cancer quality assessment was successfully implemented in 10 hospitals. This program can serve as a template for organizations interested in improving the quality of rectal cancer care.

scholarly journals Organizational reputation within the Framework of Total Quality Management: the University of Jordan as a Model

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Enas Ahmed Al Shuqairat ◽  
Mohammed Salem Al-Shura
Keyword(s):  
Quality Management ◽  
Total Quality Management ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Organizational Reputation ◽  
University Of Jordan ◽  
High Standards ◽  
The University ◽  
High Degree

This study aimed to identify the organizational reputation of the University of Jordan (a model) in the context of its application of total quality management. The study sample consisted of (350) faculty members at the University of Jordan. The study also used the (questionnaire) tool that it developed is collect data after verifying its validity and reliability. The results of the study showed that there is a high degree in the achievement of the University of Jordan for Total Quality Management, which was reflected on its reputation, and that there were significant statistically significant differences at the level (a ≤ 0.05) in the university’s reputation as a result of its application of the principles of total quality management, which was explained by the high standards of the organizational reputation variable, starting with In terms of (creativity/strength of financial position/quality of service/social responsibility), the criterion of attractiveness was the least effective. Among the recommendations that came: maintaining the application of total quality management in the University of Jordan more effectively with continuous development and improvement, and working on marketing the University of Jordan to further improve the image in the minds of beneficiaries (existing and new prospects).

scholarly journals The Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL) for Indonesia: Translation and Pilot Test

INSIST ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Khoirunnisa S.M. ◽  
Perwitasari D.A
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Pilot Test ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Language Version ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Uk

Abstract— The primary objective of this research were to produce and evaluate the official Indonesian language version of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life instrument (RAQoL). The UK RAQoL was translated into Indonesian by a forward-backward translation. A separate lay panel was conducted to consider the appropriateness and comprehensibility of the items in Indonesian. The translated version of the RAQoL was pilot tested to determine whether the questionnaire RAQoL could be well understood and well accepted. Pilot test was conducted by interviews with 20 subjects, which 10 healthy Indonesia people and 10 rheumatoid arthritis patients who were recruited from X hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.  Items on the two response format questionnaire used in pilot study were scored one for a ‘yes’ response and zero for a ‘no’ response. The individual total item scores with a high score indicating poor QoL. Few difficulties arose in the translation process and the new language version was well received by the lay panel and field-test participants. Statistical analysis was conducted to determine the difference of completion time between healthy subjects and RA patients, and the total score of the questionnaire answers between healthy subjects and patients. The average total score of responses to questionnaire on the healthy subject and patients by T test was significantly different (p < 0.05). The official Indonesian RAQoL was well received by RA patients. The psychometric quality of the translated questionnaire means that it is suitable for validity and reliability of the questionnaire towards patients with RA.Keywords—Rheumatoid Arthritis, questionnaire, RAQoL, translation, pilot test

Patient Questionnaires in Orthodontics

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-20
Author(s):  
Sophy Barber ◽  
Andrew Shelton
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Psychometric Testing ◽  
Questionnaire Design ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Patient Questionnaires ◽  
Patient Concerns

Questionnaires are versatile tools that allow data to be collected from different respondent groups for a range of purposes. This article outlines the use of questionnaires in orthodontics for research, quality improvement and clinical purposes. We highlight the importance of questionnaire design, particularly choosing the type of response to generate useful data and approaches to psychometric testing to measure validity and reliability. Orthodontic-specific questionnaires that have been developed and tested aresummarized. CPD/Clinical Relevance: Questionnaires are a useful tool for collecting information about patient concerns, experience and outcomes; this information is essential to improve the quality of care. It is crucial that valid and reliable tools are used to optimize the usefulness of information.

scholarly journals Paediatric Rational Prescribing: A Systematic Review of Assessment Tools

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 1473
Author(s):  
Fenella Corrick ◽  
Sharon Conroy ◽  
Helen Sammons ◽  
Imti Choonara
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Inappropriate Prescribing ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Rational Prescribing ◽  
Practice Standards ◽  
Paediatric Practice ◽  
Mixed Approach ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Adult Medicine ◽  
Explicit Criteria

Rational prescribing criteria have been well established in adult medicine for both research and quality improvement in the appropriate use of medicines. Paediatric rational prescribing has not been as widely investigated. The aims of this review were to identify and provide an overview of all paediatric rational prescribing tools that have been developed for use in paediatric settings. A systematic literature search was made of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and IPA from their earliest records until July 2019 for all published paediatric rational prescribing tools. The characteristics of the tools were recorded including method of development, types of criteria, aspects of rational prescribing assessed, and intended practice setting. The search identified three paediatric rational prescribing tools: the POPI (Pediatrics: Omissions of Prescriptions and Inappropriate Prescriptions) tool, the modified POPI (UK) tool, and indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc). PIPc comprises explicit criteria, whereas POPI and the modified POPI (UK) use a mixed approach. PIPc is designed for use in primary care in the UK and Ireland, POPI is designed for use in all paediatric practice settings and is based on French practice standards, and the modified POPI (UK) is based on UK practice standards and is designed for use in all paediatric practice settings. This review describes three paediatric rational prescribing tools and details their characteristics. This will provide readers with information for the use of the tools in quality improvement or research and support further work in the field of paediatric rational prescribing.

scholarly journals Development of a Multi-Domain Assessment Tool for Quality Improvement Projects

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn Rosenbluth ◽  
Natalie J. Burman ◽  
Sumant R. Ranji ◽  
Christy K. Boscardin
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Validity Evidence ◽  
Learner Engagement ◽  
Summative Feedback ◽  
User Friendly

ABSTRACT Background  Improving the quality of health care and education has become a mandate at all levels within the medical profession. While several published quality improvement (QI) assessment tools exist, all have limitations in addressing the range of QI projects undertaken by learners in undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, and continuing medical education. Objective  We developed and validated a tool to assess QI projects with learner engagement across the educational continuum. Methods  After reviewing existing tools, we interviewed local faculty who taught QI to understand how learners were engaged and what these faculty wanted in an ideal assessment tool. We then developed a list of competencies associated with QI, established items linked to these competencies, revised the items using an iterative process, and collected validity evidence for the tool. Results  The resulting Multi-Domain Assessment of Quality Improvement Projects (MAQIP) rating tool contains 9 items, with criteria that may be completely fulfilled, partially fulfilled, or not fulfilled. Interrater reliability was 0.77. Untrained local faculty were able to use the tool with minimal guidance. Conclusions  The MAQIP is a 9-item, user-friendly tool that can be used to assess QI projects at various stages and to provide formative and summative feedback to learners at all levels.

Involvement of patients in Clinical Governance

2006 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle B. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
National Health ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Governance ◽  
High Standards ◽  
The Uk

AbstractClinical Governance is a framework through which the National Health Service (NHS) organisations in the UK are accountable for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care will flourish. The NHS has moved on from being an organisation that simply delivered services to people, to being a service that is totally patient-led and responds to their needs and wishes. There are numerous national drivers and initiatives for patient involvement, including the

Assessing Data Quality: An Approach and An Application

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Kelly McMann ◽  
Daniel Pemstein ◽  
Brigitte Seim ◽  
Jan Teorell ◽  
Staffan Lindberg
Keyword(s):  
Data Quality ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Generation Process ◽  
Data Generation ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Data Quality Assessment ◽  
Assessment Approach

Abstract Political scientists routinely face the challenge of assessing the quality (validity and reliability) of measures in order to use them in substantive research. While stand-alone assessment tools exist, researchers rarely combine them comprehensively. Further, while a large literature informs data producers, data consumers lack guidance on how to assess existing measures for use in substantive research. We delineate a three-component practical approach to data quality assessment that integrates complementary multimethod tools to assess: (1) content validity; (2) the validity and reliability of the data generation process; and (3) convergent validity. We apply our quality assessment approach to the corruption measures from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, both illustrating our rubric and unearthing several quality advantages and disadvantages of the V-Dem measures, compared to other existing measures of corruption.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document