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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Niihata, Kakuya, Shimizu, Sayaka, Tsujimoto, Yasushi, Ikenoue, Tatsuyoshi, Fukuhara, Shunichi, Fukuma, Shingo
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