scholarly journals P270 Development Of Quality Indicators Of Low Risk Labor Provided Primarily By Midwives: Based On Clinical Practice Guidelines With A Modified Delphi Method

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A77.1-A77
Author(s):  
K Ueda ◽  
S Ohtera ◽  
K Misato ◽  
T Nakayama
BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e023595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kayo Ueda ◽  
Misato Kaso ◽  
Shosuke Ohtera ◽  
Takeo Nakayama

ObjectivesQuality indicators are measurable elements widely used to assess the quality of care. They are often developed from the results of systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. These sources are regularly updated in line with new clinical evidence, but there are few articles on updating quality indicators based on clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to update the quality indicators developed for low-risk labour care in Japan in 2012, mainly drawing on new or updated clinical practice guidelines, and making the process clearly visible and assessable.Design and settingWe used a modified Delphi method for the update. The procedure included four steps: (1) updating the definition of low-risk labour; (2) reviewing the literature published between June 2012 and December 2015 using five guidelines and two quality indicator databases to extract potential candidate indicators; (3) formation of a multidisciplinary panel including mothers and (4) panel ratings (two rounds between February and April 2016) on the validity of the candidate indicators, and judging the validity of the previous quality indicators drawing on the new evidence.ParticipantsA multidisciplinary panel of 13 clinicians, including obstetricians, paediatricians and midwives, plus 3 non-clinician mothers.ResultsThe literature review identified 276 new recommendations from 27 clinical practice guidelines including 2 published in Japan and 21 quality indicators. We developed 13 new candidate indicators from these sources and panel recommendations, 12 of which were approved by the multidisciplinary panel. The panel also accepted all 23 existing quality indicators as still valid, resulting in a total of 35 quality indicators for low-risk labour.ConclusionsWe successfully updated the quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan. The procedure developed may be useful for updating other quality indicators based on new clinical practice guidelines.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 248-248
Author(s):  
May Lynn Quan ◽  
William Ghali ◽  
Peter S. Craighead ◽  
Heather E. Bryant

248 Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast accounts for ~30% of new breast cancer diagnoses. Measuring quality of DCIS treatment is problematic due to its distinctively different clinical behaviour from invasive breast carcinoma, where standard outcomes such as mortality are not relevant. Therefore, we sought to develop clinically relevant quality indicators to evaluate treatment of DCIS. Methods: A Delphi consensus process was undertaken using a multidisciplinary panel of nine clinical and methodologic experts from Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Panel members were nominated based on membership in provincial breast tumour site groups. Four criteria for a good quality indicator were used; the indicator measures a treatment that benefits the patient, there is support from scientific literature or professional consensus for benefit; the indicator is under control of the health care provider, the indicator is extractable from the medical record. Candidate indicators were identified from published clinical practice guidelines in North America. Three iterations of ratings using Likert scale rankings were utilized to identify final quality indicators, which were then prioritized. Results: A total of 10 candidate indicators were identified from four clinical practice guidelines encompassing the diagnosis, surgery and adjuvant treatment components of DCIS. A total of eight indicators were identified and prioritized (Table). Conclusions: We successfully developed practical quality indicators for evaluating the treatment of DCIS, which can be used in any jurisdiction to measure key performance benchmarks and identify variations in care warranting intervention or improvement. [Table: see text]


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1622-1630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Zecchin ◽  
Dion Candelaria ◽  
Cate Ferry ◽  
Laila Akbar Ladak ◽  
Dawn McIvor ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Becker ◽  
Jessica Breuing ◽  
Monika Nothacker ◽  
Stefanie Deckert ◽  
Marie Brombach ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document