Guideline-based development of quality indicators for subfertility care

Mourad, Selma; Hermens, Rosella; Nelen, W.L.D.M.; Braat, D.D.M.; Grol, Richard; Kremer, J.A.M.

doi:10.1093/humrep/dem215

Cited by 44 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4,7,10,11,13,28 Ethics approval for this study was obtained by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Calgary.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,7,8 Quality indicators have been developed for a number of health care settings, including emergency departments (EDs). [9][10][11][12][13] However, despite the fact that children are frequent users of emergency care, 14 there is a lack of research on indicators specific to the pediatric population. For example, ,5% of children are affected by the 3 conditions most frequently addressed in adult outcomes research (diabetes, heart disease, and arthritis).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality Indicators for High Acuity Pediatric Conditions

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: Identifying gaps in care and improving outcomes for severely ill children requires the development of evidence-based performance measures. We used a systematic process involving multiple stakeholders to identify and develop evidence-based quality indicators for high acuity pediatric conditions relevant to any emergency department (ED) setting where children are seen. METHODS:A prioritized list of clinical conditions was selected by an advisory panel. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify existing indicators, as well as guidelines and evidence that could be used to inform the creation of new indicators. A multiphase, Rand-modified Delphi method consisting of anonymous questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting of an expert panel was used for indicator selection. Measure specifications and evidence grading were created for each indicator, and the feasibility and reliability of measurement was assessed in a tertiary care pediatric ED. RESULTS:The conditions selected for indicator development were diabetic ketoacidosis, status asthmaticus, anaphylaxis, status epilepticus, severe head injury, and sepsis. The majority of the 62 selected indicators reflect ED processes (84%) with few indicators reflecting structures (11%) or outcomes (5%). Thirty-seven percent (n = 23) of the selected indicators are based on moderate or high quality evidence. Data were available and interrater reliability acceptable for the majority of indicators. CONCLUSIONS:A systematic process involving multiple stakeholders was used to develop evidence-based quality indicators for high acuity pediatric conditions. Future work will test the reliability and feasibility of data collection on these indicators across the spectrum of ED settings that provide care for children . Pediatrics 2013;132:752-762

show abstract

“…4,7,10,11,13,28 Ethics approval for this study was obtained by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Calgary.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Indicators for High Acuity Pediatric Conditions

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, we used an open and creative process to develop quality indicators directly based on respondents' suggestions, which allowed the identification of many different aspects of quality of care (Campbell et al, 2002). It was not surprising that respondents' suggestions for indicators were not formulated as rate-based indicators (Mainz, 2003a,b), as the literature on infertility quality indicators reports on guideline recommendations instead of indicators (Campbell et al, 2002;Mourad et al, 2007;Haagen et al, 2010).…”

Section: Critical Appraisal Of the Study Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two previous guideline-based indicator sets developed by our research group have addressed four of the six quality dimensions (i.e. effectiveness, safety, efficiency and timeliness; Mourad et al, 2007;Haagen et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality indicators for all dimensions of infertility care quality: consensus between professionals and patients

Dancet¹,

D’Hooghe²,

Spiessens³

et al. 2013

Human Reproduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

study question: What is the relative importance of the six dimensions of quality of care according to different stakeholders and can a quality indicator set address all six quality dimensions and incorporate the views from professionals working in different disciplines and from patients?summary answer: Safety, effectiveness and patient centeredness were the most important quality dimensions. All six quality dimensions can be assessed with a set of 24 quality indicators, which is face valid and acceptable according to both professionals from different disciplines and patients.what is known already: To our knowledge, no study has weighted the relative importance of all quality dimensions to infertility care. Additionally, there are very few infertility care-specific quality indicators and no quality indicator set covers all six quality dimensions and incorporated the views of professionals and patients. study design, size and duration: A three-round iterative Delphi survey including patients and professionals from four different fields, conducted in two European countries over the course of 2011 and 2012. participants/materials, settings and methods: Dutch and Belgian gynaecologists, embryologists, counsellors, nurses/midwifes and patients took part (n ¼ 43 in round 1 and finally 30 in round 3). Respondents ranked the six quality dimensions twice for importance and their agreement was evaluated. Furthermore, in round 1, respondents gave suggestions, which were subsequently uniformly formulated as quality indicators. In rounds 2 and 3, respondents rated the quality indicators for preparedness to measure and for importance (relation to quality and prioritization for benchmarking). Providing feedback allowed selecting indicators based on consensus between stakeholder groups. Measurable indicators, important to all stakeholder groups, were selected for each quality dimension.main results: All stakeholder groups and most individuals agreed that safety, effectiveness and patient centeredness were the most important quality dimensions. A total of 498 suggestions led to the development of 298 indicators. Professionals were sufficiently prepared to measure 204 of these indicators. Based on importance, 52 (7-15 per dimension; round 2) and finally 24 (4 per dimension; round 3) quality indicators were selected.limitations, reasons for caution: The final quality indicator set does not cover the entire care process, but rather takes a 'sample' of each quality dimension. Although the quality indicators are face valid and acceptable, their psychometric characteristics need to be tested by further research.wider implications of the findings: Quality management should focus on safety, effectiveness and patient centeredness of care. Clinics can use the quality indicator set to assess all quality dimensions of their care.

show abstract

“…Als inhaltliche Grundlage für hochwertige Indikatoren dienen neben systematisch recherchierter Primärliteratur oder dem Rückgriff auf bereits validierte internationale Indikatoren auch Leitlinien [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Auch die meisten deutschen Institutionen und Initiativen, die Qualitätsindikatoren einsetzen, greifen dazu auf Leitlinien zurück [29][30][31].…”

Section: Entwicklung Von Qualitätsindikatorenunclassified