Cargando…
Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review
AIMS: Several quality indicators (QIs) to improve the quality of practice for hemodialysis patients have been implemented. However, the variations and characteristics of these indicators in terms of their use and feasibility have not been investigated. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6242363/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30623044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.89 |
_version_ | 1783371823020244992 |
---|---|
author | Niihata, Kakuya Shimizu, Sayaka Tsujimoto, Yasushi Ikenoue, Tatsuyoshi Fukuhara, Shunichi Fukuma, Shingo |
author_facet | Niihata, Kakuya Shimizu, Sayaka Tsujimoto, Yasushi Ikenoue, Tatsuyoshi Fukuhara, Shunichi Fukuma, Shingo |
author_sort | Niihata, Kakuya |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: Several quality indicators (QIs) to improve the quality of practice for hemodialysis patients have been implemented. However, the variations and characteristics of these indicators in terms of their use and feasibility have not been investigated. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the variations and characteristics of existing QIs for maintenance hemodialysis patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, without date limits, on February 26, 2016. We selected the English‐written articles regarding QIs for patients aged ≥18 years who were on maintenance hemodialysis therapy ≥3 months, and extracted the definition and development process of the reported QIs. We categorized each indicator into one of four types, namely, structure, process, surrogate outcome, and outcome, and assessed the data sources that were necessary to measure it. RESULTS: We included 70 articles and identified 101 indicators, and found that most of the consensus processes for selecting indicators were unclear. We also found that most indicators were not process indicators and that the measurement of some indicators required a chart review, which limits their use and feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: Development of QIs for hemodialysis patients in the future should use a definitive consensus process and consider process‐centered indicators that can be measured automatically using claims data and test results contained in electronic medical records, to improve usability and feasibility. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6242363 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62423632019-01-08 Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review Niihata, Kakuya Shimizu, Sayaka Tsujimoto, Yasushi Ikenoue, Tatsuyoshi Fukuhara, Shunichi Fukuma, Shingo Health Sci Rep Research Articles AIMS: Several quality indicators (QIs) to improve the quality of practice for hemodialysis patients have been implemented. However, the variations and characteristics of these indicators in terms of their use and feasibility have not been investigated. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the variations and characteristics of existing QIs for maintenance hemodialysis patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, without date limits, on February 26, 2016. We selected the English‐written articles regarding QIs for patients aged ≥18 years who were on maintenance hemodialysis therapy ≥3 months, and extracted the definition and development process of the reported QIs. We categorized each indicator into one of four types, namely, structure, process, surrogate outcome, and outcome, and assessed the data sources that were necessary to measure it. RESULTS: We included 70 articles and identified 101 indicators, and found that most of the consensus processes for selecting indicators were unclear. We also found that most indicators were not process indicators and that the measurement of some indicators required a chart review, which limits their use and feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: Development of QIs for hemodialysis patients in the future should use a definitive consensus process and consider process‐centered indicators that can be measured automatically using claims data and test results contained in electronic medical records, to improve usability and feasibility. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6242363/ /pubmed/30623044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.89 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Niihata, Kakuya Shimizu, Sayaka Tsujimoto, Yasushi Ikenoue, Tatsuyoshi Fukuhara, Shunichi Fukuma, Shingo Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review |
title | Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review |
title_full | Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review |
title_short | Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review |
title_sort | variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: a systematic review |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6242363/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30623044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.89 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT niihatakakuya variationsandcharacteristicsofqualityindicatorsformaintenancehemodialysispatientsasystematicreview AT shimizusayaka variationsandcharacteristicsofqualityindicatorsformaintenancehemodialysispatientsasystematicreview AT tsujimotoyasushi variationsandcharacteristicsofqualityindicatorsformaintenancehemodialysispatientsasystematicreview AT ikenouetatsuyoshi variationsandcharacteristicsofqualityindicatorsformaintenancehemodialysispatientsasystematicreview AT fukuharashunichi variationsandcharacteristicsofqualityindicatorsformaintenancehemodialysispatientsasystematicreview AT fukumashingo variationsandcharacteristicsofqualityindicatorsformaintenancehemodialysispatientsasystematicreview |