Measuring performance to drive improvement: development of a clinical indicator set for general medicine
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.
SourceAvailable from: Elizabeth S Lawton[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: California state and local tuberculosis (TB) programs used a systematic process to develop a set of indicators to measure and improve program performance in controlling TB. These indicators were the basis for a quality improvement process known as the TB Indicators Project. Indicators were derived from guidelines and legal mandates for clinical, case management, and surveillance standards and were assessed using established criteria. The indicators were calculated using existing surveillance data. The indicator set was field tested by local programs with high TB morbidity and subsequently revised. Collaboration with key stakeholders at all stages was crucial to developing useful and accepted indicators. Data accessibility was a critical requirement for indicator implementation. Indicators most frequently targeted for performance improvement were those perceived to be amenable to intervention. Indicators based on surveillance data can complement other public health program improvement efforts by identifying program gaps and successes and monitoring performance trends.Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 12/2012; 19(5). DOI:10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182751d6f · 1.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective and cost-effective. Despite this, prophylactic therapies for VTE are underutilized. System-wide interventions may be more effective to improve the use of VTE prophylaxis than relying on individual providers' prescribing behaviors. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), assessed in terms of:1. Increase in the proportion of patients who receive prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis2. Reduction in risk of symptomatic VTE3. Reduction in risk of asymptomatic VTE4. Safety of the intervention. The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Group's Specialised Register (last searched July 2010) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) 2010, Issue 3. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases (19 April 2010) as well as the reference lists of relevant review articles. We included all studies whose interventions aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis and/or appropriate prophylaxis, decrease the proportion of symptomatic VTE, or decrease the proportion of asymptomatic VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded studies that simply distributed published guidelines and studies whose interventions were not clearly described. We collected the following outcomes: the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis (RP), the proportion of patients who received appropriate prophylaxis (RAP) (primary outcomes), and the occurrence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic VTE, and safety outcomes such as bleeding. We categorized interventions into education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions. We meta-analyzed RCTs and non-randomized studies (NRS) separately by random effects meta-analysis, and assessed heterogeneity using the I(2)statistic and subgroup analyses. Before analysis, we decided that results would be pooled if three or more studies were available for a particular intervention. We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and cumulative meta-analysis. We included a total of 55 studies. One of these reported data in patient-days and could not be quantitatively analyzed with the others. The 54 remaining studies (8 RCTs and 46 NRS) eligible for inclusion in our quantitative synthesis enrolled a total of 78,343 participants. Among RCTs, there were sufficient data to pool results for one primary outcome (received prophylaxis) for the 'alert' intervention. Alerts, such as computerized reminders or stickers on patients' charts, were associated with a risk difference (RD) of 13%, signifying an increase in the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis (95% confidence interval (CI) 1% to 25%). Among NRS, there were sufficient data to pool both primary outcomes for each intervention type. Pooled risk differences for received prophylaxis ranged from 8% to 17%, and for received appropriate prophylaxis ranged from 11% to 19%. Education and alerts were associated with statistically significant increases in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis, and multifaceted interventions were associated with statistically significant increases in prescription of any prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis. Multifaceted interventions had the largest pooled effects. I(2) results showed substantial statistical heterogeneity which was in part explained by patient types and type of hospital. A subgroup analysis showed that multifaceted interventions which included an alert may be more effective at improving rates of prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis than those without an alert. Results for VTE and safety outcomes did not show substantial benefits or harms, although most studies were underpowered to assess these outcomes. We reviewed a large number of studies which implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed to improve thromboprophylaxis rates in many settings and patient populations. We found statistically significant improvements in prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts (RCTs) and multifaceted interventions (RCTs and NRS), and improvements in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis in NRS with the use of education, alerts and multifaceted interventions. Multifaceted interventions with an alert component may be the most effective. Demonstrated sources of heterogeneity included patient types and type of hospital. The results of our review will help physicians, nurses, pharmacists, hospital administrators and policy makers make practical decisions about local adoption of specific system-wide measures to improve prevention of VTE, an important public health issue. We did not find a significant benefit for VTE outcomes; however, earlier RCTs assessing the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis which were powered to address these outcomes have demonstrated the benefit of prophylactic therapies and a favourable balance of benefits versus the increased risk of bleeding events.Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 07/2013; 7(7):CD008201. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008201.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction:Cardiovascular diseases are among the most prevalent chronic diseases leading to high degrees of mortality and morbidity worldwide and in Iran. The aim of the current study was to determine and develop appropriate indicators for evaluating provided service quality for cardiovascular patients admitted to Cardiac Care Units (CCU) in Iran. Methods:In order to determine the indicators for evaluating provided service quality, a four-stage process including reviewing systematic review articles in premier bibliographic databases, interview, performing two rounds of Delphi technique, and holding experts panel by attendance of experts in different fields was adopted. Finally, after recognizing relevant indicators in resources, these indicators were finalized during various stages using ideas of 27 experts in different fields. Results:Among 2800 found articles in the text reviewing phase, 21 articles, which had completely mentioned relevant indicators, were studied and 48 related indicators were extracted. After two interviews with a cardiologist and an epidemiologist, 32 items of the indicators were omitted and replaced by 27 indicators coping with the conditions of Iranian hospitals. Finally, 43 indicators were added into the Delphi phase and after 2 rounds of Delphi with 18 specialists, 7 cases were excluded due to their low scores of applicability. In the experts' panel stage, 6 items were also omitted and 10 new indicators were developed to replace them. Eventually, 40 indicators were finalized. Conclusion:In this study, some proper indicators for evaluating provided service quality for CCU admissions in Iran were determined. Considering the informative richness of these indicators, they can be used by managers, policy makers, health service providers, and also insurance agencies in order to improve the quality of services, decisions, and policies.01/2013; 5(1):23-8. DOI:10.5681/jcvtr.2013.005