dc.contributor.author |
Jones, Peter |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Shepherd, Michael |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Wells, Linda |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Le Fevre, James |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Ameratunga, Shanthi |
en |
dc.date.accessioned |
2018-10-16T21:36:26Z |
en |
dc.date.issued |
2014-04 |
en |
dc.identifier.issn |
1742-6731 |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/42084 |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
Indicators measuring aspects of performance to assess quality of care are often chosen arbitrarily. The present study aimed to determine what should be considered when selecting healthcare quality indicators, particularly focusing on the application to emergency medicine. Structured searches of electronic databases were supplemented by website searches of quality of care and benchmarking organisations, citation searches and discussions with experts. Candidate attributes of 'good' healthcare indicators were extracted independently by two authors. The validity of each attribute was independently assessed by 16 experts in quality of care and emergency medicine. Valid and reliable attributes were included in a critical appraisal tool for healthcare quality indicators, which was piloted by emergency medicine specialists. Twenty-three attributes were identified, and all were rated moderate to extremely important by an expert panel. The reliability was high: alpha = 0.98. Twelve existing tools explicitly stated a median (range) of 14 (8-17) attributes. A critical appraisal tool incorporating all the attributes was developed. This was piloted by four emergency medicine specialists who were asked to appraise and rank a set of six candidate indicators. Although using the tool took more time than implicit gestalt decision making: median (interquartile range) 190 (43-352) min versus 17.5 (3-34) min, their rankings changed after using the tool. To inform the appraisal of quality improvement indicators for emergency medicine, a comprehensive list of indicator attributes was identified, validated, developed into a tool and piloted. Although expert consensus is still required, this tool provides an explicit basis for discussions around indicator selection. |
en |
dc.format.medium |
Print |
en |
dc.language |
eng |
en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA |
en |
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
en |
dc.subject |
Humans |
en |
dc.subject |
Emergency Medicine |
en |
dc.subject |
Quality of Health Care |
en |
dc.subject |
Quality Indicators, Health Care |
en |
dc.title |
Review article: what makes a good healthcare quality indicator? A systematic review and validation study. |
en |
dc.type |
Journal Article |
en |
dc.identifier.doi |
10.1111/1742-6723.12195 |
en |
pubs.issue |
2 |
en |
pubs.begin-page |
113 |
en |
pubs.volume |
26 |
en |
dc.rights.holder |
Copyright: The author |
en |
dc.identifier.pmid |
24707999 |
en |
pubs.end-page |
124 |
en |
pubs.publication-status |
Published |
en |
dc.rights.accessrights |
http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Validation Studies |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Review |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Journal Article |
en |
pubs.elements-id |
434729 |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Medical and Health Sciences |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Population Health |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Epidemiology & Biostatistics |
en |
pubs.org-id |
School of Medicine |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Surgery Department |
en |
dc.identifier.eissn |
1742-6723 |
en |
pubs.record-created-at-source-date |
2014-04-08 |
en |
pubs.dimensions-id |
24707999 |
en |