added a research item
Background Globally, the measurement of quality is an important process that supports the provision of high-quality and safe healthcare services. The requirement for valid quality measurement to gauge improvements and monitor performance is echoed in the Australian prehospital care setting. The aim of this study was to use an evidence-informed expert consensus process to identify valid quality indicators (QIs) for Australian prehospital care provided by ambulance services. Methods A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was conducted with a panel of Australian prehospital care experts from February to May 2019. The proposed QIs stemmed from a scoping review and were systematically prepared within a clinical and non-clinical classification system, and a structure/process/outcome and access/safety/effectiveness taxonomy. Rapid reviews were performed for each QI to produce evidence summaries for consideration by the panellists. QIs were deemed valid if the median score by the panel was 7–9 without disagreement. Results Of 117 QIs, the expert panel rated 84 (72%) as valid. This included 26 organisational/system QIs across 7 subdomains and 58 clinical QIs within 10 subdomains. Most QIs were process indicators (n=62; 74%) while QIs describing structural elements and desired outcomes were less common (n=13; 15% and n=9; 11%, respectively). Non-exclusively, 18 (21%) QIs addressed access to healthcare, 21 (25%) described safety aspects and 64 (76%) specified elements contributing to effective services and care. QIs on general time intervals, such as response time, were not considered valid by the panel. Conclusion This study demonstrates that with consideration of best available evidence a substantial proportion of QIs scoped and synthesised from the international literature are valid for use in the Australian prehospital care context.
Background: Pelvic fractures, especially when unstable, may cause significant haemorrhage. The early application of a pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) in patients with suspected pelvic fracture has established itself as best practice. Ambulance services conduct corresponding performance measurement. Quality indicators (QIs) are ideally based on high-quality evidence clearly demonstrating that the desirable effects outweigh the undesirable effects. In the absence of high-quality evidence, best available evidence should be combined with expert consensus. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to identify, appraise and summarize the best available evidence regarding PCCDs for the purpose of informing an expert panel tasked to evaluate the validity of the following QI: A patient with suspected pelvic fracture has a PCCD applied. Methods: A rapid review of four databases was conducted to identify relevant literature published up until 9 June 2020. Systematic reviews, experimental, quasi-experimental and observational analytic studies written in English were included. One author was responsible for study selection and quality appraisal. Data extraction using a priori extraction templates was verified by a second reviewer. Study details and key findings were summarized in tables. Results: A total of 13 studies were assessed to be eligible for inclusion in this rapid review. Of these, three were systematic reviews, one was a randomized clinical trial (crossover design), two were before-after studies, and seven were retrospective cohort studies. The systematic reviews included mostly observational studies and could therefore not be considered as high-level evidence. Overall, the identified evidence is of low quality and suggests that PCCD may provide temporary pelvic ring stabilization and haemorrhage control, although a potential for adverse effects exists. Conclusion: Given the low quality of the best available evidence, this evidence would need to be combined with expert consensus to evaluate the validity of a related quality indicator before its implementation.
Objective: The purpose of this scoping review was to locate, examine and describe the literature on indicators used to measure prehospital care quality. Introduction: The performance of ambulance services and quality of prehospital care has traditionally been measured using simple indicators, such as response time intervals, based on low-level evidence. The discipline of paramedicine has evolved significantly over the last few decades. Consequently, the validity of utilizing such measures as holistic prehospital care quality indicators (QIs) has been challenged. There is growing interest in finding new and more significant ways to measure prehospital care quality. Inclusion criteria: This scoping review examined the concepts of prehospital care quality and QIs developed for ambulance services. This review considered primary and secondary research in any paradigm and utilizing any methods, as well as text and opinion research. Methods: Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting scoping reviews was employed. Separate searches were conducted for two review questions; review question 1 addressed the definition of prehospital care quality and review question 2 addressed characteristics of QIs in the context of prehospital care. The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The searches were limited to publications from January 1, 2000 to the day of the search (April 16, 2017). Non-English articles were excluded. To supplement the above, searches for gray literature were performed, experts in the field of study were consulted and applicable websites were perused. Results: Review question 1: Nine articles were included. These originated mostly from England (n = 3, 33.3%) and the USA (n = 3, 33.3%). Only one study specifically aimed at defining prehospital care quality. Five articles (55.5%) described attributes specific to prehospital care quality and four (44.4%) articles considered generic healthcare quality attributes to be applicable to the prehospital context. A total of 17 attributes were identified. The most common attributes were Clinical effectiveness (n = 17, 100%), Efficiency (n = 7, 77.8%), Equitability (n = 7, 77.8%) and Safety (n = 6, 66.7%). Timeliness and Accessibility were referred to by four and three (44.4% and 33.3%) articles, respectively.Review question 2: Thirty articles were included. The predominant source of articles was research literature (n = 23; 76.7%) originating mostly from the USA (n = 13; 43.3%). The most frequently applied QI development method was a form of consensus process (n = 15; 50%). A total of 526 QIs were identified. Of these, 283 (53.8%) were categorized as Clinical and 243 (46.2%) as System/Organizational QIs. Within these categories respectively, QIs related to Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (n = 57; 10.8%) and Time intervals (n = 75; 14.3%) contributed the most. The most commonly addressed prehospital care quality attributes were Appropriateness (n = 250, 47.5%), Clinical effectiveness (n = 174, 33.1%) and Accessibility (n = 124, 23.6%). Most QIs were process indicators (n = 386, 73.4%). Conclusion: Whilst there is paucity in research aiming to specifically define prehospital care quality, the attributes of generic healthcare quality definitions appear to be accepted and applicable to the prehospital context. There is growing interest in developing prehospital care QIs. However, there is a need for validation of existing QIs and de novo development addressing broader aspects of prehospital care.
The current scoping review seeks to locate, examine and describe international literature on indicators used to measure pre-hospital care quality. Specifically, the review will: Map attributes of definitions or descriptions of ''quality'' in the context of pre-hospital care provided by ambulance services. Chart indicators that have been developed to measure pre-hospital care quality and detail their development processes as well as how the indicators fit into respective measurement frameworks/matrixes. © 2017 Joanna Briggs Institute. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.