Quality-of-care indicators for the neurodevelopmental follow-up of very low birth weight children: results of an expert panel process.
ABSTRACT To develop a set of quality indicators for the neurodevelopmental follow-up care of very low birth weight (VLBW; <1500 g) children.
We reviewed the scientific literature on predictors of neurodevelopmental outcomes for VLBW children and the clinical practice guidelines relevant to their care after hospital discharge. An expert panel with members nominated by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Vermont Oxford Network, and the California Children's Service was convened. We used a modified Delphi method to evaluate and select the quality-of-care indicators.
The panel recommended a total of 70 indicators in 5 postdischarge follow-up areas: general care; physical health; vision, hearing, speech, and language; developmental and behavioral assessment; and psychosocial issues. Of these, 58 (83%) indicators were in preventive care, 5 (7%) were in acute care, and 7 (10%) were in chronic care.
The quality indicators cover follow-up care for VLBW infants with various medical conditions. Given the elevated rates of long-term neurodevelopmental disabilities and the potential impact of poor health care, this new set of indicators provides an opportunity to assess and monitor the quality of follow-up care with the ultimate aim of improving the quality of care for this high-risk population.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Quality indicators (QIs) are used in many healthcare settings to measure, compare, and improve quality of care. For the efficient development of high-quality QIs, rigorous, approved, and evidence-based development methods are needed. Clinical practice guidelines are a suitable source to derive QIs from, but no gold standard for guideline-based QI development exists. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development. We systematically searched medical literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and grey literature. Two researchers selected publications reporting methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development. In order to describe and compare methodological approaches used in these publications, we extracted detailed information on common steps of guideline-based QI development (topic selection, guideline selection, extraction of recommendations, QI selection, practice test, and implementation) to predesigned extraction tables. From 8,697 hits in the database search and several grey literature documents, we selected 48 relevant references. The studies were of heterogeneous type and quality. We found no randomized controlled trial or other studies comparing the ability of different methodological approaches to guideline-based development to generate high-quality QIs. The relevant publications featured a wide variety of methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development, especially regarding guideline selection and extraction of recommendations. Only a few studies reported patient involvement. Further research is needed to determine which elements of the methodological approaches identified, described, and compared in this review are best suited to constitute a gold standard for guideline-based QI development. For this research, we provide a comprehensive groundwork.Implementation Science 03/2012; 7:21. · 3.10 Impact Factor