Article

Measuring performance to drive improvement: development of a clinical indicator set for general medicine

Clinical Epidemiology and Health Service Evaluation Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Internal Medicine Journal (Impact Factor: 1.7). 03/2009; 39(6):361-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.01913.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There are delays in implementing evidence about effective therapy into clinical practice. Clinical indicators may support implementation of guideline recommendations.
To develop and evaluate the short-term impact of a clinical indicator set for general medicine.
A set of clinical process indicators was developed using a structured process. The indicator set was implemented between January 2006 and December 2006, using strategies based on evidence about effectiveness and local contextual factors. Evaluation included a structured survey of general medical staff to assess awareness and attitudes towards the programme and qualitative assessment of barriers to implementation. Impact on documentation of adherence to clinical indicators was assessed by auditing a random sample of medical records before (2003-2005) and after (2006) implementation.
Clinical indicators were developed for the following areas: venous thromboembolism, cognition, chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, low trauma fracture, patient written care plans. The programme was well supported and incurred little burden to staff. Implementation occurred largely as planned; however, documentation of adherence to clinical indicators was variable. There was a generally positive trend over time, but for most indicators this was independent of the implementation process and may have been influenced by other system improvement activities. Failure to demonstrate a significant impact during the pilot phase is likely to have been influenced by administrative factors, especially lack of an integrative data documentation and collection process.
Successful implementation in phase two is likely to depend upon an effective data collection system integrated into usual care.

0 Followers
 · 
82 Views
  • Internal Medicine Journal 07/2009; 39(6):347-51. DOI:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.01966.x · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • Internal Medicine Journal 05/2010; 40(5):390; author reply 390-1. DOI:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02179.x · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality indicators (QIs) are increasingly being used to measure and improve the quality of cardiac care. We conducted an international environmental scan to identify and critically appraise published QI development initiatives addressing cardiovascular disease (CVD). A review of the peer-reviewed and grey English-language literature was conducted to identify published CVD QI development initiatives. The quality of identified studies was assessed using a modified version of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II QI tool-an instrument originally developed for the assessment of the quality of clinical practice guidelines. An initial literature search identified 2314 potentially relevant abstracts of peer-reviewed articles. After a review of the abstracts, 120 full text articles were retrieved and reviewed. Of these, 20 articles and 1 peer-reviewed monograph were selected for critical appraisal (n = 21). Most of the initiatives were conducted in North America (76%) and were published after 2005 (62%). The majority (5 of 6) of the AGREE II QI domain scores were skewed toward higher values, including the median score for the 'overall quality' rating (83.3%). Of the CVD categories addressed within the 21 initiatives, heart failure was the most common (n = 10 QI indicator sets), followed by acute coronary syndromes (n = 8). Considerable variation was observed in the methods utilized and the degree of scientific rigour applied in the published international CVD QI development initiatives. Adoption of standardized methods could help improve the quality of QI development initiatives.
    The Canadian journal of cardiology 12/2011; 28(1):110-8. DOI:10.1016/j.cjca.2011.09.019 · 3.94 Impact Factor