scholarly journals Measuring patient-centred system performance: a scoping review of patient-centred care quality indicators

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e023596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Jose Santana ◽  
Sadia Ahmed ◽  
Diane Lorenzetti ◽  
Rachel J Jolley ◽  
Kimberly Manalili ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThe shift to the patient-centred care (PCC) model as a healthcare delivery paradigm calls for systematic measurement and evaluation. In an attempt to develop patient-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs), this study aimed to identify quality indicators that can be used to measure PCC.MethodsDesign: scoping review. Data Sources: studies were identified through searching seven electronic databases and the grey literature. Search terms included quality improvement, quality indicators, healthcare quality and PCC. Eligibility Criteria: articles were included if they mentioned development and/or implementation of PC-QIs. Data Extraction and Synthesis: extracted data included study characteristics (country, year of publication and type of study/article), patients’ inclusion in the development of indicators and type of patient populations and point of care if applicable (eg, in-patient, out-patient and primary care).ResultsA total 184 full-text peer-reviewed articles were assessed for eligibility for inclusion; of these, 9 articles were included in this review. From the non–peer-reviewed literature, eight documents met the criteria for inclusion in this study. This review revealed the heterogeneity describing and defining the nature of PC-QIs. Most PC-QIs were presented as PCC measures and identified as guidelines, surveys or recommendations, and therefore cannot be classified as actual PC-QIs. Out of 502 ways to measure PCC, only 25 were considered to be actual PC-QIs. None of the identified articles implemented the quality indicators in care settings.ConclusionThe identification of PC-QIs is a key first step in laying the groundwork to develop evidence-based PC-QIs. Research is needed to continue the development and implementation of PC-QIs for healthcare quality improvement.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Issrah Jawad ◽  
Sumayyah Rashan ◽  
Chathurani Sigera ◽  
Jorge Salluh ◽  
Arjen M Dondorp ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Excess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management [1–3]. Routine measurement of quality indicators through an EHR or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing Indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on quality indicators (QIs) for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and the reported challenges of implementation.Method We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform- or Electronic Health Record (EHR) adapted for quality of care surveillance.Results The search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. 51 unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%) hospital processes (54.9%) and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%).Conclusions Despite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritised and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.


Pain Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daly Geagea ◽  
Zephanie Tyack ◽  
Roy Kimble ◽  
Lars Eriksson ◽  
Vince Polito ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective Inadequately treated pain and distress elicited by medical procedures can put children at higher risks of acute and chronic biopsychosocial sequelae. Children can benefit from hypnotherapy, a psychological tailored intervention, as an adjunct to pharmacological agents to address the multiple components of pain and distress. Despite providing evidence on the effectiveness and potential superiority of hypnotherapy to other psychological interventions, research on hypnotherapy for paediatric procedural pain and distress has been predominantly limited to oncology and needle procedures. Plus, there is a lack of reporting of intervention manuals, factors influencing hypnotic responding, pain unpleasantness outcomes, theoretical frameworks, adverse events, as well as barriers and facilitators to the feasibility of delivering the intervention and study procedures. The proposed review aims to map the range and nature of the evidence on hypnotherapy for procedural pain and distress in children to identify gaps in literature and areas requiring further investigation. Methods This review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodology and incorporate additional scoping review recommendations by The Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Relevant studies will be identified through searching published literature databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature in addition to hand-searching of reference lists and key journals. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts of search results followed by full-texts review against eligibility criteria. Conclusion Findings are anticipated to guide future research and inform the development of tailored hypnotic interventions in children.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle M. Nash ◽  
Zohra Bhimani ◽  
Jennifer Rayner ◽  
Merrick Zwarenstein

Abstract Background Learning health systems have been gaining traction over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to understand the spread of learning health systems in primary care, including where they have been implemented, how they are operating, and potential challenges and solutions. Methods We completed a scoping review by systematically searching OVID Medline®, Embase®, IEEE Xplore®, and reviewing specific journals from 2007 to 2020. We also completed a Google search to identify gray literature. Results We reviewed 1924 articles through our database search and 51 articles from other sources, from which we identified 21 unique learning health systems based on 62 data sources. Only one of these learning health systems was implemented exclusively in a primary care setting, where all others were integrated health systems or networks that also included other care settings. Eighteen of the 21 were in the United States. Examples of how these learning health systems were being used included real-time clinical surveillance, quality improvement initiatives, pragmatic trials at the point of care, and decision support. Many challenges and potential solutions were identified regarding data, sustainability, promoting a learning culture, prioritization processes, involvement of community, and balancing quality improvement versus research. Conclusions We identified 21 learning health systems, which all appear at an early stage of development, and only one was primary care only. We summarized and provided examples of integrated health systems and data networks that can be considered early models in the growing global movement to advance learning health systems in primary care.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e045345
Author(s):  
Marie Stenberg ◽  
Elisabeth Mangrio ◽  
Mariette Bengtsson ◽  
Elisabeth Carlson

ObjectivesFormative peer assessment focuses on learning and development of the student learning process. This implies that students are taking responsibility for assessing the work of their peers by giving and receiving feedback to each other. The aim was to compile research about formative peer assessment presented in higher healthcare education, focusing on the rationale, the interventions, the experiences of students and teachers and the outcomes of formative assessment interventions.DesignA scoping review.Data sourcesSearches were conducted until May 2019 in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Research Complete and Education Research Centre. Grey literature was searched in Library Search, Google Scholar and Science Direct.Eligibility criteriaStudies addressing formative peer assessment in higher education, focusing on medicine, nursing, midwifery, dentistry, physical or occupational therapy and radiology published in peer-reviewed articles or in grey literature.Data extractions and synthesisOut of 1452 studies, 37 met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised using relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, Joanna Briggs Institute and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool tools. The pertinent data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultThe critical appraisal resulted in 18 included studies with high and moderate quality. The rationale for using formative peer assessment relates to giving and receiving constructive feedback as a means to promote learning. The experience and outcome of formative peer assessment interventions from the perspective of students and teachers are presented within three themes: (1) organisation and structure of the formative peer assessment activities, (2) personal attributes and consequences for oneself and relationships and (3) experience and outcome of feedback and learning.ConclusionHealthcare education must consider preparing and introducing students to collaborative learning, and thus develop well-designed learning activities aligned with the learning outcomes. Since peer collaboration seems to affect students’ and teachers’ experiences of formative peer assessment, empirical investigations exploring collaboration between students are of utmost importance.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Issrah Jawad ◽  
Sumayyah Rashan ◽  
Chathurani Sigera ◽  
Jorge Salluh ◽  
Arjen M. Dondorp ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Excess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management (Berenholtz et al., J Crit Care 17:1-2, 2002; De Vos et al., J Crit Care 22:267-74, 2007; Zimmerman J Crit Care 1:12-5, 2002). Routine measurement of quality indicators (QIs) through an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on QIs for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and both the reported advantages and challenges of implementation. Method We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase the sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform or EHR adapted for quality of care surveillance. Results The search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. Fifty-one unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%), hospital processes (54.9%), and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%). Conclusions Despite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder-driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritized and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e046547
Author(s):  
Luke Johnson ◽  
Kerry Gutridge ◽  
Julie Parkes ◽  
Anjana Roy ◽  
Emma Plugge

ObjectiveTo examine the extent, nature and quality of literature on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of imprisoned people and prison staff.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane, PsycINFO, PsychExtra, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for any paper from 2019 onwards that focused on the mental health impact of COVID-19 on imprisoned people and prison staff. A grey literature search focused on international and government sources and professional bodies representing healthcare, public health and prison staff was also performed. We also performed hand searching of the reference lists of included studies.Eligibility criteria for selection of studiesAll papers, regardless of study design, were included if they examined the mental health of imprisoned people or prison staff specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Imprisoned people could be of any age and from any countries. All languages were included. Two independent reviewers quality assessed appropriate papers.ResultsOf 647 articles found, 83 were eligible for inclusion, the majority (58%) of which were opinion pieces. The articles focused on the challenges to prisoner mental health. Fear of COVID-19, the impact of isolation, discontinuation of prison visits and reduced mental health services were all likely to have an adverse effect on the mental well-being of imprisoned people. The limited research and poor quality of articles included mean that the findings are not conclusive. However, they suggest a significant adverse impact on the mental health and well-being of those who live and work in prisons.ConclusionsIt is key to address the mental health impacts of the pandemic on people who live and work in prisons. These findings are discussed in terms of implications for getting the balance between infection control imperatives and the fundamental human rights of prison populations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-42
Author(s):  
Svetlana Jovanović ◽  
Maja Milošević ◽  
Irena Aleksić-Hajduković ◽  
Jelena Mandić

Summary Health care has witnessed considerable progresses toward quality improvement over the past two decades. More precisely, there have been global efforts aimed to improve this aspect of health care along with experts and decision-makers reaching the consensus that quality is one of the most significant dimensions and features of health system. Quality health care implies highly efficient resource use in order to meet patient’s needs in terms of prevention and treatment. Quality health care is provided in a safe way while meeting patients’ expectations and avoiding unnecessary losses. The mission of continuous improvement in quality of care is to achieve safe and reliable health care through mutual efforts of all the key supporters of health system to protect patients’ interests. A systematic approach to measuring the process of care through quality indicators (QIs) poses the greatest challenge to continuous quality improvement in health care. Quality indicators are quantitative indicators used for monitoring and evaluating quality of patient care and treatment, continuous professional development (CPD), maintaining waiting lists, patients and staff satisfaction, and patient safety.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e024588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten Marchand ◽  
Scott Beaumont ◽  
Jordan Westfall ◽  
Scott MacDonald ◽  
Scott Harrison ◽  
...  

IntroductionSubstance use disorders are chronic conditions that require a multidimensional treatment approach. Despite ongoing efforts to diversify such treatments, evidence continues to illuminate modest rates of treatment engagement and perceived barriers to treatment. Patient-centred care (PCC) is one approach that may strengthen the responsiveness of treatments for people with problematic substance use. The aim of this scoping review is to explore how the principles of PCC have been implemented and operationalised in healthcare settings for people with problematic substance use.Methods and analysisThis scoping review follows the iterative stages of the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Both empirical (from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science) and grey literature references will be considered if they focused on populations with problematic substance use and described or measured PCC or one of its principles in a health-oriented context. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract screening and then full-text screening for references meeting title/abstract criteria. A descriptive overview, tabular and/or graphical summaries, and a directed content analysis will be carried out on extracted data. This scoping review has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/5swvd/).Ethics and disseminationThis review will systematically examine the extent and nature of existing evidence of PCC in addiction research and clinical practice. Such evidence will contribute to the operationalisation of PCC for people with problematic substance use. A multidisciplinary team has been gathered to represent the needs of people with problematic substance use, healthcare providers and decision-makers. The team’s knowledge users will be engaged throughout this review and will participate in dissemination activities (eg, workshops, presentations, publications, reports).


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Lau ◽  
Penny Lun ◽  
Wendy Ang ◽  
Keng Teng Tan ◽  
Yew Yoong Ding

Abstract Background As the population ages, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in the older adults may become increasingly prevalent. This undermines patient safety and creates a potential source of major morbidity and mortality. Understanding the factors that influence prescribing behaviour may allow development of interventions to reduce PIP. The aim of this study is to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore barriers to effective prescribing for older adults in the ambulatory setting. Methods A scoping review was performed based on the five-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. From 30 Aug 2018 to 5 Sep 2018, we conducted our search on PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science. We also searched five electronic journals, Google and Google Scholar to identify additional sources and grey literature. Two reviewers applied eligibility criteria to the title and abstract screening, followed by full text screening, before systematically charting the data. Results A total of 5731 articles were screened. Twenty-nine studies met the selection criteria for qualitative analysis. We mapped our results using the 14-domain TDF, eventually identifying 10 domains of interest for barriers to effective prescribing. Of these, significant domains include physician-related factors such as “Knowledge”, “Skills”, and “Social/Professional Role and Identity”; issues with “Environmental Context and Resources”; and the impact of “Social Influences” and “Emotion” on prescribing behaviour. Conclusion The TDF elicited multiple domains which both independently and collectively lead to barriers to effective prescribing for older adults in the ambulatory setting. Changing the prescribing climate will thus require interventions targeting multiple stakeholders, including physicians, patients and hospital/clinic systems. Further work is needed to explore individual domains and guide development of frameworks to aid guide prescribing for older adults in the ambulatory setting.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 531-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia A S Araujo ◽  
Marina Martins Siqueira ◽  
Ana Maria Malik

Abstract Purpose To systematically review the impact of hospital accreditation on healthcare quality indicators, as classified into seven healthcare quality dimensions. Data source We searched eight databases in June 2020: EBSCO, PubMed, Web of Science, Emerald, ProQuest, Science Direct, Scopus and Virtual Health Library. Search terms were conceptualized into three groups: hospitals, accreditation and terms relating to healthcare quality. The eligibility criteria included academic articles that applied quantitative methods to examine the impact of hospital accreditation on healthcare quality indicators. Study selection We applied the PICO framework to select the articles according to the following criteria: Population—all types of hospitals; Intervention—hospital accreditation; Comparison—quantitative method applied to compare accredited vs. nonaccredited hospitals, or hospitals before vs. after accreditation; Outcomes—regarding the seven healthcare quality dimensions. After a critical appraisal of the 943 citations initially retrieved, 36 studies were included in this review. Results of data synthesis Overall results suggest that accreditation may have a positive impact on efficiency, safety, effectiveness, timeliness and patient-centeredness. In turn, only one study analyzes the impact on access, and no study has investigated the impact on equity dimension yet. Conclusion Mainly due to the methodological shortcomings, the positive impact of accreditation on healthcare dimensions should be interpreted with caution. This study provides an up-to-date overview of the main themes examined in the literature, highlighting critical knowledge-gaps and methodological flaws. The findings may provide value to healthcare stakeholders in terms of improving their ability to assess the relevance of accreditation processes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document