Cargando…

Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review

Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Voeten, S.C., Krijnen, P., Voeten, D.M., Hegeman, J.H., Wouters, M.W.J.M., Schipper, I.B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer London 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6105160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29774404
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4558-x
_version_ 1783349609272180736
author Voeten, S.C.
Krijnen, P.
Voeten, D.M.
Hegeman, J.H.
Wouters, M.W.J.M.
Schipper, I.B.
author_facet Voeten, S.C.
Krijnen, P.
Voeten, D.M.
Hegeman, J.H.
Wouters, M.W.J.M.
Schipper, I.B.
author_sort Voeten, S.C.
collection PubMed
description Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary aim was to compose a set of methodologically sound quality indicators for the evaluation of hip fracture care in clinical practice. A literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines and an internet search were performed to identify hip fracture quality indicators. The indicators were subdivided into process, structure, and outcome indicators. The methodological quality of the indicators was judged using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. For structure and process indicators, the construct validity was assessed. Sixteen publications, nine audits and five guidelines were included. In total, 97 unique quality indicators were found: 9 structure, 63 process, and 25 outcome indicators. Since detailed methodological information about the indicators was lacking, the AIRE instrument could not be applied. Seven indicators correlated with an outcome measure. A set of nine quality indicators was extracted from the literature, audits, and guidelines. Many quality indicators are described and used. Not all of them correlate with outcomes of care and have been assessed methodologically. As methodological evidence is lacking, we recommend the extracted set of nine indicators to be used as the starting point for further clinical research. Future research should focus on assessing the clinimetric properties of the existing quality indicators.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6105160
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer London
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61051602018-08-30 Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review Voeten, S.C. Krijnen, P. Voeten, D.M. Hegeman, J.H. Wouters, M.W.J.M. Schipper, I.B. Osteoporos Int Review Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary aim was to compose a set of methodologically sound quality indicators for the evaluation of hip fracture care in clinical practice. A literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines and an internet search were performed to identify hip fracture quality indicators. The indicators were subdivided into process, structure, and outcome indicators. The methodological quality of the indicators was judged using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. For structure and process indicators, the construct validity was assessed. Sixteen publications, nine audits and five guidelines were included. In total, 97 unique quality indicators were found: 9 structure, 63 process, and 25 outcome indicators. Since detailed methodological information about the indicators was lacking, the AIRE instrument could not be applied. Seven indicators correlated with an outcome measure. A set of nine quality indicators was extracted from the literature, audits, and guidelines. Many quality indicators are described and used. Not all of them correlate with outcomes of care and have been assessed methodologically. As methodological evidence is lacking, we recommend the extracted set of nine indicators to be used as the starting point for further clinical research. Future research should focus on assessing the clinimetric properties of the existing quality indicators. Springer London 2018-05-17 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6105160/ /pubmed/29774404 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4558-x Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial 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.
spellingShingle Review
Voeten, S.C.
Krijnen, P.
Voeten, D.M.
Hegeman, J.H.
Wouters, M.W.J.M.
Schipper, I.B.
Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
title Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
title_full Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
title_fullStr Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
title_short Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
title_sort quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6105160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29774404
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4558-x
work_keys_str_mv AT voetensc qualityindicatorsforhipfracturecareasystematicreview
AT krijnenp qualityindicatorsforhipfracturecareasystematicreview
AT voetendm qualityindicatorsforhipfracturecareasystematicreview
AT hegemanjh qualityindicatorsforhipfracturecareasystematicreview
AT woutersmwjm qualityindicatorsforhipfracturecareasystematicreview
AT schipperib qualityindicatorsforhipfracturecareasystematicreview