Geertruida E Bekkering1, Dieter Zeeuws2, Evelien Lenaerts1, Leo Pas1, Geert Verstuyf3, Frieda Matthys4, Bert Aertgeerts1, Catharina Matheï5. 1. Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Blok j, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium. 3. VAD (Flemish Centre of Expertise on Alcohol and Other Drugs), Vanderlindenstraat 15, 1030 Schaarbeek Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium VAD (Flemish Centre of Expertise on Alcohol and Other Drugs), Vanderlindenstraat 15, 1030 Schaarbeek Brussels, Belgium. 5. Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Blok j, 3000 Leuven, Belgium catharina.mathei@med.kuleuven.be.
Abstract
AIMS: To develop indicators to assess quality of continuing care for persons with alcohol use disorder (AUD). METHODS: A guideline-based RAND-modified Delphi method was used to develop and validate indicators regarding the process and outcome of continuing care. We systematically searched for evidence-based guidelines and existing quality indicators. A multidisciplinary expert panel prioritized recommendations using a written questionnaire followed by a group discussion. Important recommendations were then translated to quality indicators. The panel subsequently selected indicators that were measurable and applicable in Belgium. In a final round the indicators face-validity was assessed. RESULTS: We extracted 69 recommendations from 06 guidelines and 17 relevant quality indicators. Of all, 13 indicators remained after 03 written rounds and 02 group discussions. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a systematic approach to develop and validate quality indicators for continuing care for AUD. The final set of selected indicators consisted of 10 process and 03 outcome indicators. As the level of evidence of effective continuing care components is very low further development of the indicators is recommended. SHORT SUMMARY: This study describes a systematic approach to develop and validate quality indicators for continuing care for AUD. The proposed set of indicators consisted of 10 process and 03 outcome indicators. As the level of evidence of effective continuing care components is very low further development of the indicators is recommended.
AIMS: To develop indicators to assess quality of continuing care for persons with alcohol use disorder (AUD). METHODS: A guideline-based RAND-modified Delphi method was used to develop and validate indicators regarding the process and outcome of continuing care. We systematically searched for evidence-based guidelines and existing quality indicators. A multidisciplinary expert panel prioritized recommendations using a written questionnaire followed by a group discussion. Important recommendations were then translated to quality indicators. The panel subsequently selected indicators that were measurable and applicable in Belgium. In a final round the indicators face-validity was assessed. RESULTS: We extracted 69 recommendations from 06 guidelines and 17 relevant quality indicators. Of all, 13 indicators remained after 03 written rounds and 02 group discussions. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a systematic approach to develop and validate quality indicators for continuing care for AUD. The final set of selected indicators consisted of 10 process and 03 outcome indicators. As the level of evidence of effective continuing care components is very low further development of the indicators is recommended. SHORT SUMMARY: This study describes a systematic approach to develop and validate quality indicators for continuing care for AUD. The proposed set of indicators consisted of 10 process and 03 outcome indicators. As the level of evidence of effective continuing care components is very low further development of the indicators is recommended.
Authors: André Ramalho; Pedro Castro; Manuel Gonçalves-Pinho; Juliana Teixeira; João Vasco Santos; João Viana; Mariana Lobo; Paulo Santos; Alberto Freitas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240