Marie Smets1, Miek Smeets1, Steve Van den Bulck1, Stefan Janssens2, Bert Aertgeerts1, Bert Vaes1,3. 1. a Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium. 2. b Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Universitair Ziekenhuis Gasthuisberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven , Leuven , Belgium. 3. c Institute of Health and Society, Université Catholique de Louvain , Brussels , Belgium.
Abstract
Background: Quality indicators (QIs) are used to measure and evaluate quality of care. However, QIs to evaluate care for HF patients in general practice in Belgium are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to determine which QIs, rooted in the electronic health record (EHR), are useful to monitor quality of care for patients with HF in general practice. Methods: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (a modified Delphi method) was used to define these assigned QIs. First, a literature review was performed to generate a list of possible QIs for HF. Second, by applying the SMART principle, 25 QIs were withheld. Third, an expert panel of health care providers experienced in HF (cardiologists, general practitioners and HF nurses) was convened. Finally, the panellists rated the QIs for appropriateness in three rounds. Results: The withheld QIs highlighted diverse aspects of HF care. In round 1, 20 of the 25 QIs were considered appropriate, and five were considered uncertain. In round 2, 19 QIs were rated appropriate, four inappropriate, and two uncertain. In round 3, the final 19 appropriate QIs were ranked to form a top 10. The top three began with the identification of the aetiology of HF, continued with the differentiation between HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction, and concluded with the treatment of HF with an ACE-I and a β-blocker in third place. Conclusion: In this study, 19 QIs for HF in general practice, extractable from the EHR, were identified. These QIs should enable the qualitative monitoring of HF care.
Background: Quality indicators (QIs) are used to measure and evaluate quality of care. However, QIs to evaluate care for HF patients in general practice in Belgium are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to determine which QIs, rooted in the electronic health record (EHR), are useful to monitor quality of care for patients with HF in general practice. Methods: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (a modified Delphi method) was used to define these assigned QIs. First, a literature review was performed to generate a list of possible QIs for HF. Second, by applying the SMART principle, 25 QIs were withheld. Third, an expert panel of health care providers experienced in HF (cardiologists, general practitioners and HF nurses) was convened. Finally, the panellists rated the QIs for appropriateness in three rounds. Results: The withheld QIs highlighted diverse aspects of HF care. In round 1, 20 of the 25 QIs were considered appropriate, and five were considered uncertain. In round 2, 19 QIs were rated appropriate, four inappropriate, and two uncertain. In round 3, the final 19 appropriate QIs were ranked to form a top 10. The top three began with the identification of the aetiology of HF, continued with the differentiation between HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction, and concluded with the treatment of HF with an ACE-I and a β-blocker in third place. Conclusion: In this study, 19 QIs for HF in general practice, extractable from the EHR, were identified. These QIs should enable the qualitative monitoring of HF care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Heart failure; electronic health record; primary health care; quality indicators