Literature DB >> 12468698

Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care.

S M Campbell1, J Braspenning, A Hutchinson, M Marshall.   

Abstract

Quality indicators have been developed throughout Europe primarily for use in hospitals, but also increasingly for primary care. Both development and application are important but there has been less research on the application of indicators. Three issues are important when developing or applying indicators: (1). which stakeholder perspective(s) are the indicators intended to reflect; (2). what aspects of health care are being measured; and (3). what evidence is available? The information required to develop quality indicators can be derived using systematic or non-systematic methods. Non-systematic methods such as case studies play an important role but they do not tap in to available evidence. Systematic methods can be based directly on scientific evidence by combining available evidence with expert opinion, or they can be based on clinical guidelines. While it may never be possible to produce an error free measure of quality, measures should adhere, as far as possible, to some fundamental a priori characteristics (acceptability, feasibility, reliability, sensitivity to change, and validity). Adherence to these characteristics will help maximise the effectiveness of quality indicators in quality improvement strategies. It is also necessary to consider what the results of applying indicators tell us about quality of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12468698      PMCID: PMC1758017          DOI: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.358

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care        ISSN: 1475-3898


  77 in total

Review 1.  Clinical guidelines and their implementation.

Authors:  D Forrest; A Hoskins; R Hussey
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.401

2.  Six challenges in measuring the quality of health care.

Authors:  E A McGlynn
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Is ownership more important than the scientific credibility of audit protocols? A survey of medical audit advisory groups.

Authors:  R Baker; R C Fraser
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 2.267

4.  Measuring quality in general practice. Pilot study of a needs, process and outcome measure.

Authors:  J G Howie; D J Heaney; M Maxwell
Journal:  Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1997-02

5.  Assessing the quality of care.

Authors:  H T Davies; I K Crombie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-23

6.  North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development.

Authors:  M Eccles; Z Clapp; J Grimshaw; P C Adams; B Higgins; I Purves; I Russell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-23

7.  Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care.

Authors:  R H Brook; E A McGlynn; P D Cleary
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-09-26       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Variation among hospitals in coronary-angiography practices and outcomes after myocardial infarction in a large health maintenance organization.

Authors:  J V Selby; B H Fireman; R J Lundstrom; B E Swain; A F Truman; C C Wong; E S Froelicher; H V Barron; M A Hlatky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-12-19       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  The appropriateness of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in academic medical centers. Working Group of the Appropriateness Project of the Academic Medical Center Consortium.

Authors:  L L Leape; L H Hilborne; J S Schwartz; D W Bates; H R Rubin; P Slavin; R E Park; D M Witter; R J Panzer; R H Brook
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1996-07-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  J Mant; N Hicks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-23
View more
  165 in total

1.  Using routine comparative data to assess the quality of health care: understanding and avoiding common pitfalls.

Authors:  A E Powell; H T O Davies; R G Thomson
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-04

2.  Assessing the quality of care of multiple conditions in general practice: practical and methodological problems.

Authors:  S A Kirk; S M Campbell; S Kennell-Webb; D Reeves; M O Roland; M N Marshall
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-12

Review 3.  Developing national outcome standards for the management of gonorrhoea and genital chlamydia in genitourinary medicine clinics.

Authors:  N Low; J Welch; K Radcliffe
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.519

4.  Developing primary care review criteria from evidence-based guidelines: coronary heart disease as a model.

Authors:  Allen Hutchinson; Aileen McIntosh; Jeff Anderson; Claire Gilbert; Rosemary Field
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Assessing the acceptability of quality indicators and linkages to payment in primary care in nova scotia.

Authors:  Fred Burge; Beverley Lawson; Wayne Putnam
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2011-05

6.  Identification of an updated set of prescribing--safety indicators for GPs.

Authors:  Rachel Spencer; Brian Bell; Anthony J Avery; Gill Gookey; Stephen M Campbell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 7.  Development of quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery, using a 3-step modified Delphi approach.

Authors:  Anna R Gagliardi; Marko Simunovic; Bernard Langer; Hartley Stern; Adalsteinn D Brown
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  Development of NSAIDs prescription indicators based on health outcomes.

Authors:  Rocío Fernández Urrusuno; Miguel Pedregal González; Ma Amparo Torrecilla Rojas
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Documented quality of care in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany: German Cancer Society benchmarking report for 2013.

Authors:  S Wesselmann; A Winter; J Ferencz; T Seufferlein; S Post
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  How do stakeholder groups vary in a Delphi technique about primary mental health care and what factors influence their ratings?

Authors:  S M Campbell; T Shield; A Rogers; L Gask
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.