scholarly journals Development of a simple, practice-based tool to assess quality of paediatric emergency care delivery in resource-limited settings: identifying critical actions via a Delphi study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e021123
Author(s):  
Rajesh Kirit Daftary ◽  
Brittany Lee Murray ◽  
Teri Ann Reynolds

ObjectiveProvision of timely, high-quality care for the initial management of critically ill children in African hospitals remains a challenge. Monitoring the completion of critical actions during resuscitations can inform efforts to reduce variability and improve outcomes. We sought to develop a practice-based tool based on contextually relevant actions identified via a Delphi process. Our goal was to develop a tool that could identify gaps in care, facilitate identification of training and standardised assessment to support quality improvement efforts.DesignSix sentinel conditions were selected based on disease epidemiology and mortality at rural and urban African emergency departments. Potential critical actions were identified through focused literature review. These actions were evaluated within a three-round modified Delphi process. A set of logistical filters was applied to the candidate list to derive a practice-based tool.Setting and participantsAttendees at an international emergency medicine conference comprised an expert panel of 25 participants, with 84% working primarily in African settings. Consensus rounds allowing novel responses were conducted via online and in-person surveys.ResultsThe expert panel generated 199 actions that apply to six conditions in emergently ill children. Application of appropriateness criteria refined this to 92 candidate actions across the following seven categories: core skills, active seizure, altered mental status, diarrhoeal illness, febrile illness, respiratory distress and polytrauma. From these, we identified 28 actions for inclusion in a practice-based tool contextually relevant to the initial management of critically ill children in Africa.ConclusionsA group consensus process identified critical actions for severely ill children with select sentinel conditions in emergency paediatric care in an African setting. Absence of these actions during resuscitation might reflect modifiable gaps in quality of care. The resulting practice-based tool is context relevant and can serve as a foundation for training and quality improvement efforts in African hospitals and emergency departments.

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This chapter contains 56 references.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This chapter contains 56 references.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 577-584
Author(s):  
Boştjan Žvanut ◽  
Milena Burnik ◽  
Tamara Štemberger Kolnik ◽  
Patrik Pucer

Abstract Objectives In healthcare, a variety of quality management practices are used. Although they are important sources for quality improvement initiatives, they do not focus on each particular process. On the other hand, ‘Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies’ (COBIT) offers a well-defined process representation structure for representing potential process improvements. The objective of this study was to adopt the COBIT structure for healthcare processes and assess the applicability of such process representations. Design A two-round Delphi technique was applied: in round 1, open-ended interviews were performed with the participants; in round 2, the participants responded to the web questionnaire. Settings The participants provided their opinion between 11 September 2018 and 26 June 2019. Participants It included 37 members of an expert panel from 8 European countries. Intervention N/A Main Outcome Measures In round 1, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats indicators of using the proposed structure in healthcare were identified. These were evaluated on a 9-point Likert scale in round 2. Results All participants noted that elements of the COBIT process representation structure were suitable for representing healthcare processes. The consensus was reached only for strengths and opportunities indicators. Conclusions A set of processes represented with the suggested structure has the potential to become a valid reference in healthcare quality improvements initiatives, as COBIT in IT domain. Despite the fact that the expert panel members confirmed the applicability of the COBIT process representation structure for healthcare processes, the identified weaknesses and threats cannot be ignored.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 78-78
Author(s):  
Anne C. Chiang ◽  
Katherine Elizabeth Reeder-Hayes ◽  
Kristen K. McNiff ◽  
Tracey L. Evans ◽  
Inga Tolin Lennes ◽  
...  

78 Background: A sustainable, standardized approach for quality assessment and improvement is increasingly expected in oncology. This requires oncology leaders to identify processes and infrastructure to facilitate sustainable initiatives for practice refinement. To date, few summative reports of lessons learned, key success factors, and barriers to regular quality improvement have been reported. Methods: After IRB protocol approval, a focus group of 11 diverse physician oncology leaders was conducted, using a guide developed through multiple discussions by investigators. The physicians represented diverse organizations with community-based, private practice and academic settings. Data analysis of interview transcripts was performed iteratively, with a grounded theory approach with a method called “constant comparisons”, with related open and axial coding techniques. Transcripts were coded independently by two or three coders, and the resulting code lists integrated prior to final analysis. Differences in coding were resolved by consensus. Results: Overall, physician quality leaders discussed needs and barriers in 5 major domains: coordination of care, communication, finances, value, and quality improvement. Two major themes emerged: rapid change cycles in a dynamic landscape of practice--changing business models and care delivery, new expensive drugs, oral chemotherapy--and their respective unintended consequences on quality of care, e.g. financial toxicity for patients, misalignment of financial incentives and a quality agenda. Participants discussed responding to these changes and key factors in harnessing the practice model to deliver quality care. Conclusions: Cancer care delivery is rapidly evolving and undergoing intrinsic cycles of quality improvement. This project helps to inform systemic quality improvement efforts targeted towards oncology practices by identifying areas of concern and highlighting key factors to be addressed to achieve value, alignment and quality of care. Institutional culture and infrastructure including resources and incentives for quality improvement/measurement were identified as critical success factors.


Author(s):  
Abdallah Namoun ◽  
Ahmad Taleb ◽  
Mohammed Al-Shargabi ◽  
Mohamed Benaida

Measuring the effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement cycle in education is a cumbersome and sophisticated process. This article contributes a comprehensive self-assessment instrument for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of all phases of a continuous quality improvement cycle, including planning, data collection, analysis and reporting, and implementation of improvements. To this end, a four round Delphi study soliciting a total of 23 program quality experts from four universities was conducted. The produced survey instrument contains a total of 50 questions. The instrument may be used by quality experts in education to judge the quality of their continuous quality improvement cycle that endeavours to assess the attainment of learning outcomes in various undergraduate educational programs. Moreover, the instrument could be exploited to infer relevant user and system requirements and guide the development of an automated self-assessment tool aimed at identifying the shortcomings in educational continuous quality improvement cycles.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement.  This review contains 1 highly rendered figure, 3 tables, and 56 references.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blair R. L. Colwell ◽  
Cydni N. Williams ◽  
Serena P. Kelly ◽  
Laura M. Ibsen

Background Mobilization is safe and associated with improved outcomes in critically ill adults, but little is known about mobilization of critically ill children. Objective To implement a standardized mobilization therapy protocol in a pediatric intensive care unit and improve mobilization of patients. Methods A goal-directed mobilization protocol was instituted as a quality improvement project in a 20-bed cardiac and medical-surgical pediatric intensive care unit within an academic tertiary care center. The mobilization goal was based on age and severity of illness. Data on severity of illness, ordered activity limitations, baseline functioning, mobilization level, complications of mobilization, and mobilization barriers were collected. Goal mobilization was defined as a ratio of mobilization level to severity of illness of 1 or greater. Results In 9 months, 567 patient encounters were analyzed, 294 (52%) of which achieved goal mobilization. The mean ratio of mobilization level to severity of illness improved slightly but nonsignificantly. Encounters that met mobilization goals were in younger (P = .04) and more ill (P < .001) patients and were less likely to have barriers (P < .001) than encounters not meeting the goals. Complication rate was 2.5%, with no difference between groups (P = .18). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions A multidisciplinary, multiprofessional, goal-directed mobilization protocol achieved goal mobilization in more than 50% of patients in this pediatric intensive care unit. Undermobilized patients were older, less ill, and more likely to have mobilization barriers at the patient and provider level.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noleen K McCorry ◽  
Sean O’Connor ◽  
Kathleen Leemans ◽  
Joanna Coast ◽  
Michael Donnelly ◽  
...  

Background: The goal of Palliative Day Services is to provide holistic care that contributes to the quality of life of people with life-threatening illness and their families. Quality indicators provide a means by which to describe, monitor and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services provision and act as a starting point for quality improvement. However, currently, there are no published quality indicators for Palliative Day Services. Aim: To develop and provide the first set of quality indicators that describe and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services. Design and setting: A modified Delphi technique was used to combine best available research evidence derived from a systematic scoping review with multidisciplinary expert appraisal of the appropriateness and feasibility of candidate indicators. The resulting indicators were compiled into ‘toolkit’ and tested in five UK Palliative Day Service settings. Results: A panel of experts independently reviewed evidence summaries for 182 candidate indicators and provided ratings on appropriateness, followed by a panel discussion and further independent ratings of appropriateness, feasibility and necessity. This exercise resulted in the identification of 30 indicators which were used in practice testing. The final indicator set comprised 7 structural indicators, 21 process indicators and 2 outcome indicators. Conclusion: The indicators fulfil a previously unmet need among Palliative Day Service providers by delivering an appropriate and feasible means to assess, review, and communicate the quality of care, and to identify areas for quality improvement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-154
Author(s):  
Beth Emerson ◽  
Christine Capone ◽  
Todd Sweberg ◽  
Lee Polikoff ◽  
Takanari Ikeyama ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document