AIM: We aimed at developing a prioritized set of quality indicators for schizophrenia care to be used for continuous quality monitoring. They should be evidence-based and rely on routine data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers on validated quality indicators published between 1990 to April 2008 in MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Databases of relevant national and international organizations were searched. Indicators were described with respect to meaningfulness, feasibility and actionability. A workshop with relevant stakeholders evaluated the measures through a structured consensus process. RESULTS: We identified 78 indicators through literature search and selected 22 quality indicators. Furthermore, 12 structural and case-mix indicators were choosen. Only five quality indicators were rated "essential indicators" (priority 1), 14 were rated "additional first choice" (priority 2), and three were rated as "additional second choice" (priority 3). Only four indicators assessed outcome quality. In the majority of indicators the evidence base supporting the indicator recommendation was weak. None of the selected indicators was validated in experimental studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence and validation base played only a subordinate role for indicator prioritisation by stakeholders indicating that there are discrepancies between clinical questions and requirements in schizophrenia care and scientific research.
AIM: We aimed at developing a prioritized set of quality indicators for schizophrenia care to be used for continuous quality monitoring. They should be evidence-based and rely on routine data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers on validated quality indicators published between 1990 to April 2008 in MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Databases of relevant national and international organizations were searched. Indicators were described with respect to meaningfulness, feasibility and actionability. A workshop with relevant stakeholders evaluated the measures through a structured consensus process. RESULTS: We identified 78 indicators through literature search and selected 22 quality indicators. Furthermore, 12 structural and case-mix indicators were choosen. Only five quality indicators were rated "essential indicators" (priority 1), 14 were rated "additional first choice" (priority 2), and three were rated as "additional second choice" (priority 3). Only four indicators assessed outcome quality. In the majority of indicators the evidence base supporting the indicator recommendation was weak. None of the selected indicators was validated in experimental studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence and validation base played only a subordinate role for indicator prioritisation by stakeholders indicating that there are discrepancies between clinical questions and requirements in schizophrenia care and scientific research.
Authors: G Fantini; G Tibaldi; P Rucci; D Gibertoni; M Vezzoli; L Cifarelli; R Tiraferri; C Munizza Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 6.892