Cargando…

Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Internationally, people in prison should receive a standard of healthcare provision equivalent to people living in the community. Yet efforts to assess the quality of healthcare through the use of quality indicators or performance measures have been much more widely reported in the commu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bellass, Sue, Canvin, Krysia, McLintock, Kate, Wright, Nat, Farragher, Tracey, Foy, Robbie, Sheard, Laura
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8902782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35257254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00175-9
_version_ 1784664663185686528
author Bellass, Sue
Canvin, Krysia
McLintock, Kate
Wright, Nat
Farragher, Tracey
Foy, Robbie
Sheard, Laura
author_facet Bellass, Sue
Canvin, Krysia
McLintock, Kate
Wright, Nat
Farragher, Tracey
Foy, Robbie
Sheard, Laura
author_sort Bellass, Sue
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Internationally, people in prison should receive a standard of healthcare provision equivalent to people living in the community. Yet efforts to assess the quality of healthcare through the use of quality indicators or performance measures have been much more widely reported in the community than in the prison setting. This review aims to provide an overview of research undertaken to develop quality indicators suitable for prison healthcare. METHODS: An international scoping review of articles published in English was conducted between 2004 and 2021. Searches of six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, PsycInfo and Criminal Justice Abstracts) were supplemented with journal searches, author searches and forwards and backwards citation tracking. RESULTS: Twelve articles were included in the review, all of which were from the United States. Quality indicator selection processes varied in rigour, and there was no evidence of patient involvement in consultation activities. Selected indicators predominantly measured healthcare processes rather than health outcomes or healthcare structure. Difficulties identified in developing performance measures for the prison setting included resource constraints, data system functionality, and the comparability of the prison population to the non-incarcerated population. CONCLUSIONS: Selecting performance measures for healthcare that are evidence-based, relevant to the population and feasible requires rigorous and transparent processes. Balanced sets of indicators for prison healthcare need to reflect prison population trends, be operable within data systems and be aligned with equivalence principles. More effort needs to be made to meaningfully engage people with lived experience in stakeholder consultations on prison healthcare quality. Monitoring healthcare structure, processes and outcomes in prison settings will provide evidence to improve care quality with the aim of reducing health inequalities experienced by people living in prison. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40352-022-00175-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8902782
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89027822022-03-18 Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review Bellass, Sue Canvin, Krysia McLintock, Kate Wright, Nat Farragher, Tracey Foy, Robbie Sheard, Laura Health Justice Research Article BACKGROUND: Internationally, people in prison should receive a standard of healthcare provision equivalent to people living in the community. Yet efforts to assess the quality of healthcare through the use of quality indicators or performance measures have been much more widely reported in the community than in the prison setting. This review aims to provide an overview of research undertaken to develop quality indicators suitable for prison healthcare. METHODS: An international scoping review of articles published in English was conducted between 2004 and 2021. Searches of six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, PsycInfo and Criminal Justice Abstracts) were supplemented with journal searches, author searches and forwards and backwards citation tracking. RESULTS: Twelve articles were included in the review, all of which were from the United States. Quality indicator selection processes varied in rigour, and there was no evidence of patient involvement in consultation activities. Selected indicators predominantly measured healthcare processes rather than health outcomes or healthcare structure. Difficulties identified in developing performance measures for the prison setting included resource constraints, data system functionality, and the comparability of the prison population to the non-incarcerated population. CONCLUSIONS: Selecting performance measures for healthcare that are evidence-based, relevant to the population and feasible requires rigorous and transparent processes. Balanced sets of indicators for prison healthcare need to reflect prison population trends, be operable within data systems and be aligned with equivalence principles. More effort needs to be made to meaningfully engage people with lived experience in stakeholder consultations on prison healthcare quality. Monitoring healthcare structure, processes and outcomes in prison settings will provide evidence to improve care quality with the aim of reducing health inequalities experienced by people living in prison. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40352-022-00175-9. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8902782/ /pubmed/35257254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00175-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bellass, Sue
Canvin, Krysia
McLintock, Kate
Wright, Nat
Farragher, Tracey
Foy, Robbie
Sheard, Laura
Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review
title Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review
title_full Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review
title_fullStr Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review
title_short Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review
title_sort quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8902782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35257254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00175-9
work_keys_str_mv AT bellasssue qualityindicatorsandperformancemeasuresforprisonhealthcareascopingreview
AT canvinkrysia qualityindicatorsandperformancemeasuresforprisonhealthcareascopingreview
AT mclintockkate qualityindicatorsandperformancemeasuresforprisonhealthcareascopingreview
AT wrightnat qualityindicatorsandperformancemeasuresforprisonhealthcareascopingreview
AT farraghertracey qualityindicatorsandperformancemeasuresforprisonhealthcareascopingreview
AT foyrobbie qualityindicatorsandperformancemeasuresforprisonhealthcareascopingreview
AT sheardlaura qualityindicatorsandperformancemeasuresforprisonhealthcareascopingreview