Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is now a complex, chronic disease requiring high quality care. Demonstration of quality HIV care requires uniform, aligned HIV care quality measurement.
In September 2007, the National Committee for Quality Assurance, under contract with the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement of the American Medical Association, and HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Disease Society of America jointly sponsored and convened an expert panel as a HIV/AIDS Work Group to draft national HIV/AIDS performance measures for individual patient-level and system-level quality improvement.
A total of 17 measures were developed to assess processes and outcomes of HIV/AIDS care for patients established in care, defined as having at least 2 visits in a 12-month period; thus, measures of HIV screening, testing, linkage, and access to care were not included. As a set, the measures assess a wide range of care, including patient retention, screening and prophylaxis for opportunistic infections, immunization, and initiation and monitoring of potent antiretroviral therapy. Since development, the HIV/AIDS measures' specifications have been fully determined and are being beta tested, and a majority have been endorsed by the National Quality Forum and have been adopted and implemented by the sponsoring organizations.
HIV care quality measurement should be assessed with greater uniformity. The measures presented offer opportunities for such alignment.
"In the validation phase of three studies, the proposed indicators were revised after discussion by physicians who were working on an HIV/AIDS control program as well as HIV care-providing facilities, for their local relevance and retained only the indicators where consensus was achieved [22,27-29,31]. In other six studies there was no reference to validation. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Several organizations and individual authors have been proposing quality indicators for the assessment of clinical care in HIV/AIDS patients. Nevertheless, the definition of a consensual core set of indicators remains controversial and its practical use is largely limited. This study aims not only to identify and characterize these indicators through a systematic literature review but also to propose a parsimonious model based on those most used.
MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane databases and ISI Web of Knowledge, as well as official websites of organizations dealing with HIV/AIDS care, were searched for articles and information proposing HIV/AIDS clinical care quality indicators. The ones that are on patient's perspective and based on services set were excluded. Data extraction, using a predefined data sheet based on Cochrane recommendations, was done by one of the authors while a second author rechecked the extracted data for any inconsistency.
A total of 360 articles were identified in our search query but only 12 of them met the inclusion criteria. We also identified one relevant site. Overall, we identified 65 quality indicators for HIV/AIDS clinical care distributed as following: outcome (n=15) and process-related (n=50) indicators; generic (n=36) and HIV/AIDS disease-specific (n=29) indicators; baseline examinations (n=19), screening (n=9), immunization (n=4), prophylaxis (n=5), HIV monitoring (n=16), and therapy (=12) indicators.
There are several studies that set up HIV clinical care indicators, with only a part of them useful to assess the HIV clinical care. More importantly, HIV/AIDS clinical care indicators need to be valid, reliable and most of all feasible.
BMC Health Services Research 06/2013; 13(1):236. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-236 · 1.71 Impact Factor
"Deficits in provided care may have important implications for the health of the individual HIV patient as well as for public health
. Several attempts have been made to develop HIV care quality measures which are typically limited to one country or a single clinic
[7,8]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also developed a set of indicators for monitoring the health systems response to HIV/AIDS
, which are mainly focused on health systems per se without the capability to monitor clinical management of patients (i.e. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
State-of-the-art care involving the utilisation of multiple health care interventions is the basis for an optimal long-term clinical prognosis for HIV-patients. We evaluated health care for HIV patients based on four key indicators.
Four indicators of health care were assessed: Compliance with current guidelines on initiation of: 1) combination antiretroviral therapy (cART); 2) chemoprophylaxis; 3) frequency of laboratory monitoring; and 4) virological response to cART (proportion of patients with HIV-RNA < 500copies/ml for >90% of time on cART).
7097 EuroSIDA patients were included from Northern (n = 923), Southern (n = 1059), West Central (n = 1290) East Central (n = 1366), Eastern (n = 1964) Europe, and Argentina (n = 495). Patients in Eastern Europe with a CD4 < 200cells/mm3 were less likely to initiate cART and Pneumocystis jiroveci-chemoprophylaxis compared to patients from all other regions, and less frequently had a laboratory assessment of their disease status. The proportion of patients with virological response was highest in Northern, 89% vs. 84%, 78%, 78%, 61%, 55% in West Central, Southern, East Central Europe, Argentina and Eastern Europe, respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared to Northern, patients from other regions had significantly lower odds of virological response; the difference was most pronounced for Eastern Europe and Argentina (adjusted OR 0.16 [95%CI 0.11-0.23, p < 0.0001]; 0.20[0.14-0.28, p < 0.0001] respectively).
This assessment of HIV health care utilization revealed pronounced regional differences in adherence to guidelines and can help to identify gaps and direct target interventions. It may serve as a tool for the assessment and benchmarking of the clinical management of HIV patients in any setting worldwide.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.