Cargando…

Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rushforth, Bruno, Stokes, Tim, Andrews, Elizabeth, Willis, Thomas A., McEachan, Rosemary, Faulkner, Simon, Foy, Robbie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624600/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26507739
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6
_version_ 1782397822194155520
author Rushforth, Bruno
Stokes, Tim
Andrews, Elizabeth
Willis, Thomas A.
McEachan, Rosemary
Faulkner, Simon
Foy, Robbie
author_facet Rushforth, Bruno
Stokes, Tim
Andrews, Elizabeth
Willis, Thomas A.
McEachan, Rosemary
Faulkner, Simon
Foy, Robbie
author_sort Rushforth, Bruno
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care. METHODS: We reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of ‘high impact’ QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England. RESULTS: Out of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites – comprising 2–9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4624600
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46246002015-10-30 Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process Rushforth, Bruno Stokes, Tim Andrews, Elizabeth Willis, Thomas A. McEachan, Rosemary Faulkner, Simon Foy, Robbie BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care. METHODS: We reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of ‘high impact’ QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England. RESULTS: Out of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites – comprising 2–9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4624600/ /pubmed/26507739 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6 Text en © Rushforth et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rushforth, Bruno
Stokes, Tim
Andrews, Elizabeth
Willis, Thomas A.
McEachan, Rosemary
Faulkner, Simon
Foy, Robbie
Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process
title Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process
title_full Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process
title_fullStr Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process
title_full_unstemmed Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process
title_short Developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process
title_sort developing ‘high impact’ guideline-based quality indicators for uk primary care: a multi-stage consensus process
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624600/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26507739
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6
work_keys_str_mv AT rushforthbruno developinghighimpactguidelinebasedqualityindicatorsforukprimarycareamultistageconsensusprocess
AT stokestim developinghighimpactguidelinebasedqualityindicatorsforukprimarycareamultistageconsensusprocess
AT andrewselizabeth developinghighimpactguidelinebasedqualityindicatorsforukprimarycareamultistageconsensusprocess
AT willisthomasa developinghighimpactguidelinebasedqualityindicatorsforukprimarycareamultistageconsensusprocess
AT mceachanrosemary developinghighimpactguidelinebasedqualityindicatorsforukprimarycareamultistageconsensusprocess
AT faulknersimon developinghighimpactguidelinebasedqualityindicatorsforukprimarycareamultistageconsensusprocess
AT foyrobbie developinghighimpactguidelinebasedqualityindicatorsforukprimarycareamultistageconsensusprocess