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: 1.82). 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 Bookmarks
 · 
70 Views
  • Internal Medicine Journal 05/2010; 40(5):390; author reply 390-1. · 1.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [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; · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drug-related problems (DRPs) are common in older people, resulting in a disproportionate number of serious medication adverse events. Pharmacist-led interventions have been shown to be effective in identifying and reducing DRPs such as medication interactions, omission of recommended medications and use of ineffective medications. In 2008 we proposed a prescribing indicators tool to assist in identifying DRPs as part of the Australian medication review process. The objective was to apply the proposed prescribing indicators tool to a cohort of older Australians, to assess its use in detecting potential DRPs. The prescribing indicators tool was applied in a cross-sectional observational study to 126 older (aged ≥65 years) English-speaking Australians taking five or more medications, as they were being discharged from a small private hospital into the community. Indicators were unmet when prescribing did not adhere to indicator tool guidelines. We found a high incidence of under-treatment, and use of inappropriate medications. There were on average 18 applicable indicators per patient, with each patient having on average seven unmet indicators. The use of a prescribing indicators tool for commonly used medications and common medical conditions in older Australians may contribute to the efficient identification of DRPs.
    The International journal of pharmacy practice. 06/2012; 20(3):172-82.