BACKGROUND: In the choice and definition of quality of care indicators, there may be an inherent tension between feasibility, generally enhanced by simplicity, and validity, generally enhanced by accounting for clinical complexity. OBJECTIVE: To study the process of developing quality indicators using an expert panel and analyze the tension between feasibility and validity. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary panel of 12 expert physicians was engaged in two rounds of modified Delphi process to refine and choose a smaller subset from 36 indicators; these were developed by a research team studying the quality of care in ambulatory post-myocardial infarction patients with co-morbidities. We studied the correlation between validity/feasibility ranks provided by the expert panel. The correlation between the quality indicators ranks on validity and feasibility scale and variance of experts' responses was also individually studied. RESULTS: Ten of 36 indicators were ranked in both the highest validity and feasibility groups. The strength of association between validity and feasibility of indicators measured by Kendall tau-b was 0.65. In terms of validity, a strong negative correlation was observed between the ranks of indicators and the variability in expert panel responses (Spearman's rho, r = -0.85). A weak correlation was found between the ranks of feasibility and the variability of expert panel responses (Spearman's rho, r = 0.23). CONCLUSION: There was an unexpectedly strong association between the validity and feasibility of quality indicators, with a high level of consensus among experts regarding both feasibility and validity for indicators rated highly on each of these attributes.
BACKGROUND: In the choice and definition of quality of care indicators, there may be an inherent tension between feasibility, generally enhanced by simplicity, and validity, generally enhanced by accounting for clinical complexity. OBJECTIVE: To study the process of developing quality indicators using an expert panel and analyze the tension between feasibility and validity. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary panel of 12 expert physicians was engaged in two rounds of modified Delphi process to refine and choose a smaller subset from 36 indicators; these were developed by a research team studying the quality of care in ambulatory post-myocardial infarctionpatients with co-morbidities. We studied the correlation between validity/feasibility ranks provided by the expert panel. The correlation between the quality indicators ranks on validity and feasibility scale and variance of experts' responses was also individually studied. RESULTS: Ten of 36 indicators were ranked in both the highest validity and feasibility groups. The strength of association between validity and feasibility of indicators measured by Kendall tau-b was 0.65. In terms of validity, a strong negative correlation was observed between the ranks of indicators and the variability in expert panel responses (Spearman's rho, r = -0.85). A weak correlation was found between the ranks of feasibility and the variability of expert panel responses (Spearman's rho, r = 0.23). CONCLUSION: There was an unexpectedly strong association between the validity and feasibility of quality indicators, with a high level of consensus among experts regarding both feasibility and validity for indicators rated highly on each of these attributes.
Authors: K A Phillips; M G Shlipak; P Coxson; P A Heidenreich; M G Hunink; P A Goldman; L W Williams; M C Weinstein; L Goldman Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-12-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ted R Mikuls; Catherine H MacLean; Jason Olivieri; Fausto Patino; Jeroan J Allison; John T Farrar; Warren B Bilker; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-03
Authors: Eric M Cheng; Andrew Siderowf; Kari Swarztrauber; Mahmood Eisa; Martin Lee; Barbara G Vickrey Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Catherine H MacLean; Kenneth G Saag; Daniel H Solomon; Sally C Morton; Sarah Sampsel; John H Klippel Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-04-15
Authors: Harold Alan Pincus; Mingjie Li; Deborah M Scharf; Brigitta Spaeth-Rublee; Matthew L Goldman; Parashar P Ramanuj; Erin K Ferenchick Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Sabine Ludt; Elisabeth Urban; Jörg Eckardt; Stefanie Wache; Björn Broge; Petra Kaufmann-Kolle; Günther Heller; Antje Miksch; Katharina Glassen; Katja Hermann; Regine Bölter; Dominik Ose; Stephen M Campbell; Michel Wensing; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ellen Funkhouser; Deborah A Levine; Joe K Gerald; Thomas K Houston; Nancy K Johnson; Jeroan J Allison; Catarina I Kiefe Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Talita Raquel Dos Santos; Maria Clara Padoveze; Lúcia Yasuko Izumi Nichiata; Renata Ferreira Takahashi; Suely Itsuko Ciosak; Anna Luiza de Fátima Pinho Lins Gryschek Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2016-06-07
Authors: Anke Bramesfeld; Stephanie Wrede; Klaus Richter; Mareike Steen; Björn Broge; Jürgen Pauletzki; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Moise Muzigaba; Tamar Chitashvili; Allysha Choudhury; Wilson M Were; Theresa Diaz; Kathleen L Strong; Debra Jackson; Jennifer Requejo; Anne Detjen; Emma Sacks Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 2.908