Cargando…

Quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international Delphi study

OBJECTIVE: To find consensus on appropriate and feasible structure, process and outcome indicators for the evaluation of in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes. DESIGN: An international two-round Delphi study based on a systematic literature review (searching databases, reference lists, pros...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Grootven, Bastiaan, McNicoll, Lynn, Mendelson, Daniel A, Friedman, Susan M, Fagard, Katleen, Milisen, Koen, Flamaing, Johan, Deschodt, Mieke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29549210
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020617
_version_ 1783307519985188864
author Van Grootven, Bastiaan
McNicoll, Lynn
Mendelson, Daniel A
Friedman, Susan M
Fagard, Katleen
Milisen, Koen
Flamaing, Johan
Deschodt, Mieke
author_facet Van Grootven, Bastiaan
McNicoll, Lynn
Mendelson, Daniel A
Friedman, Susan M
Fagard, Katleen
Milisen, Koen
Flamaing, Johan
Deschodt, Mieke
author_sort Van Grootven, Bastiaan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To find consensus on appropriate and feasible structure, process and outcome indicators for the evaluation of in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes. DESIGN: An international two-round Delphi study based on a systematic literature review (searching databases, reference lists, prospective citations and trial registers). SETTING: Western Europe and the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three people with at least 2 years of clinical experience in geriatric co-management were recruited. Twenty-eight experts (16 from the USA and 12 from Europe) participated in both Delphi rounds (85% response rate). MEASURES: Participants rated the indicators on a nine-point scale for their (1) appropriateness and (2) feasibility to use the indicator for the evaluation of geriatric co-management programmes. Indicators were considered appropriate and feasible based on a median score of seven or higher. Consensus was based on the level of agreement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. RESULTS: In the first round containing 37 indicators, there was consensus on 14 indicators. In the second round containing 44 indicators, there was consensus on 31 indicators (structure=8, process=7, outcome=16). Experts indicated that co-management should start within 24 hours of hospital admission using defined criteria for selecting appropriate patients. Programmes should focus on the prevention and management of geriatric syndromes and complications. Key areas for comprehensive geriatric assessment included cognition/delirium, functionality/mobility, falls, pain, medication and pressure ulcers. Key outcomes for evaluating the programme included length of stay, time to surgery and the incidence of complications. CONCLUSION: The indicators can be used to assess the performance of geriatric co-management programmes and identify areas for improvement. Furthermore, the indicators can be used to monitor the implementation and effect of these programmes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5857708
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58577082018-03-20 Quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international Delphi study Van Grootven, Bastiaan McNicoll, Lynn Mendelson, Daniel A Friedman, Susan M Fagard, Katleen Milisen, Koen Flamaing, Johan Deschodt, Mieke BMJ Open Geriatric Medicine OBJECTIVE: To find consensus on appropriate and feasible structure, process and outcome indicators for the evaluation of in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes. DESIGN: An international two-round Delphi study based on a systematic literature review (searching databases, reference lists, prospective citations and trial registers). SETTING: Western Europe and the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three people with at least 2 years of clinical experience in geriatric co-management were recruited. Twenty-eight experts (16 from the USA and 12 from Europe) participated in both Delphi rounds (85% response rate). MEASURES: Participants rated the indicators on a nine-point scale for their (1) appropriateness and (2) feasibility to use the indicator for the evaluation of geriatric co-management programmes. Indicators were considered appropriate and feasible based on a median score of seven or higher. Consensus was based on the level of agreement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. RESULTS: In the first round containing 37 indicators, there was consensus on 14 indicators. In the second round containing 44 indicators, there was consensus on 31 indicators (structure=8, process=7, outcome=16). Experts indicated that co-management should start within 24 hours of hospital admission using defined criteria for selecting appropriate patients. Programmes should focus on the prevention and management of geriatric syndromes and complications. Key areas for comprehensive geriatric assessment included cognition/delirium, functionality/mobility, falls, pain, medication and pressure ulcers. Key outcomes for evaluating the programme included length of stay, time to surgery and the incidence of complications. CONCLUSION: The indicators can be used to assess the performance of geriatric co-management programmes and identify areas for improvement. Furthermore, the indicators can be used to monitor the implementation and effect of these programmes. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5857708/ /pubmed/29549210 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020617 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Geriatric Medicine
Van Grootven, Bastiaan
McNicoll, Lynn
Mendelson, Daniel A
Friedman, Susan M
Fagard, Katleen
Milisen, Koen
Flamaing, Johan
Deschodt, Mieke
Quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international Delphi study
title Quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international Delphi study
title_full Quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international Delphi study
title_fullStr Quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international Delphi study
title_full_unstemmed Quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international Delphi study
title_short Quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international Delphi study
title_sort quality indicators for in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes: a systematic literature review and international delphi study
topic Geriatric Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29549210
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020617
work_keys_str_mv AT vangrootvenbastiaan qualityindicatorsforinhospitalgeriatriccomanagementprogrammesasystematicliteraturereviewandinternationaldelphistudy
AT mcnicolllynn qualityindicatorsforinhospitalgeriatriccomanagementprogrammesasystematicliteraturereviewandinternationaldelphistudy
AT mendelsondaniela qualityindicatorsforinhospitalgeriatriccomanagementprogrammesasystematicliteraturereviewandinternationaldelphistudy
AT friedmansusanm qualityindicatorsforinhospitalgeriatriccomanagementprogrammesasystematicliteraturereviewandinternationaldelphistudy
AT fagardkatleen qualityindicatorsforinhospitalgeriatriccomanagementprogrammesasystematicliteraturereviewandinternationaldelphistudy
AT milisenkoen qualityindicatorsforinhospitalgeriatriccomanagementprogrammesasystematicliteraturereviewandinternationaldelphistudy
AT flamaingjohan qualityindicatorsforinhospitalgeriatriccomanagementprogrammesasystematicliteraturereviewandinternationaldelphistudy
AT deschodtmieke qualityindicatorsforinhospitalgeriatriccomanagementprogrammesasystematicliteraturereviewandinternationaldelphistudy