Kirsten Strudwick1, Mark Nelson, Melinda Martin-Khan, Michael Bourke, Anthony Bell, Trevor Russell. 1. The Physiotherapy Department, QEII Jubilee Hospital, Metro South Health, Queensland, Australia; The Emergency Department, QEII Jubilee Hospital, Metro South Health, Queensland, Australia; The Division of Physiotherapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is increasing importance placed on quality of health care for musculoskeletal injuries in emergency departments (EDs). This systematic review aimed to identify existing musculoskeletal quality indicators (QIs) developed for ED use and to critically evaluate their methodological quality. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the gray literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched in 2013. English-language articles were included that described the development of at least one QI related to the ED care of musculoskeletal injuries. Data extraction of each included article was conducted. A quality assessment was then performed by rating each relevant QI against the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) Instrument. QIs with similar definitions were grouped together and categorized according to the health care quality frameworks of Donabedian and the Institute of Medicine. RESULTS: The search revealed 1,805 potentially relevant articles, of which 15 were finally included in the review. The number of relevant QIs per article ranged from one to 11, resulting in a total of 71 QIs overall. Pain (n = 17) and fracture management (n = 13) QIs were predominant. Ten QIs scored at least 50% across all AIRE Instrument domains, and these related to pain management and appropriate imaging of the spine. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality of the development of most QIs is poor. Recommendations for a core set of QIs that address the complete spectrum of musculoskeletal injury management in emergency medicine is not possible, and more work is needed. Currently, QIs with highest methodological quality are in the areas of pain management and medical imaging.
OBJECTIVES: There is increasing importance placed on quality of health care for musculoskeletal injuries in emergency departments (EDs). This systematic review aimed to identify existing musculoskeletal quality indicators (QIs) developed for ED use and to critically evaluate their methodological quality. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the gray literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched in 2013. English-language articles were included that described the development of at least one QI related to the ED care of musculoskeletal injuries. Data extraction of each included article was conducted. A quality assessment was then performed by rating each relevant QI against the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) Instrument. QIs with similar definitions were grouped together and categorized according to the health care quality frameworks of Donabedian and the Institute of Medicine. RESULTS: The search revealed 1,805 potentially relevant articles, of which 15 were finally included in the review. The number of relevant QIs per article ranged from one to 11, resulting in a total of 71 QIs overall. Pain (n = 17) and fracture management (n = 13) QIs were predominant. Ten QIs scored at least 50% across all AIRE Instrument domains, and these related to pain management and appropriate imaging of the spine. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality of the development of most QIs is poor. Recommendations for a core set of QIs that address the complete spectrum of musculoskeletal injury management in emergency medicine is not possible, and more work is needed. Currently, QIs with highest methodological quality are in the areas of pain management and medical imaging.
Authors: Karlijn J Joling; Liza van Eenoo; Davide L Vetrano; Veerle R Smaardijk; Anja Declercq; Graziano Onder; Hein P J van Hout; Henriëtte G van der Roest Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yelena Petrosyan; Yeva Sahakyan; Jan M Barnsley; Kerry Kuluski; Barbara Liu; Walter P Wodchis Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 2.267