Perioperative structure and process quality and safety indicators: a systematic review

被引:43
|
作者
Chazapis, M. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Gilhooly, D. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Smith, A. F. [10 ]
Myles, P. S. [5 ,6 ,7 ]
Haller, G. [8 ]
Grocott, M. P. W. [9 ]
Moonesinghe, S. R. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Inst Epidemiol & Appl Hlth Res, London, England
[2] UCLH Surg Outcomes Res Ctr, Dept Appl Hlth Res, London, England
[3] Univ Coll Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia & Perioperat Med, London, England
[4] Royal Coll Anaesthetists, Natl Inst Acad Anaesthesias, Hlth Serv Res Ctr, London, England
[5] Alfred Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia & Perioperat Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] Monash Univ, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[7] Monash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Hlth Serv Management & Res Unit, Alfred Ctr, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[8] Geneva Univ Hosp, Div Anaesthesia, Dept Anaesthesiol Pharmacol & Intens Care, Geneva, Switzerland
[9] Univ Southampton, Univ Hosp Southampton NHS Fdn Trust, Crit Care Res Grp, Southampton NIHR Biomed Res Ctr, Southampton, Hants, England
[10] Royal Lancaster Infirm, Dept Anaesthesia, Lancaster, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
healthcare; perioperative period; quality indicators; review; systematic; CARE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS; SURGERY ENHANCED RECOVERY; OF-CARE; HEALTH-CARE; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM; HOSPITAL VOLUME; BREAST-CANCER; CLINICAL INDICATORS; COLORECTAL-CANCER;
D O I
10.1016/j.bja.2017.10.001
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background: Clinical indicators assess healthcare structures, processes, and outcomes. While used widely, the exact number and level of scientific evidence of these indicators remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the number, type, and evidence base of clinical process and structure indicators currently available for quality and safety measurement in perioperative care. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Google Scholar, and System for Information in Grey Literature in Europe databases for English language human studies in adults (age >18) published in the past 10 years (January 2005eJanuary 2016). We also included professional and governmental body publications and guidelines describing the development, validation, and use of structure and process indicators in perioperative care. Results: We identified 43 860 journal articles and 43 relevant indicator program publications. From these, we identified a total of 1282 clinical indicators, split into structure (36%, n = 463) and process indicators (64%, n = 819). The dimensions of quality most frequently addressed were effectiveness (38%, n = 475) and patient safety (29%, n = 363). The majority of indicators (53%, n = 675) did not have a level of evidence ascribed in their literature. Patient-centred metrics accounted for the fewest published clinical indicators. Conclusions: Despite widespread use, the majority of clinical indicators are not based on a strong level of scientific evidence. There may be scope in setting standards for the development and validation process of clinical indicators. Most indicators focus on the effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of care. PROSPERO database: CRD4201501277.
引用
收藏
页码:51 / 66
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Process assessment by automated computation of healthcare quality indicators in hospital electronic health records: a systematic review of indicators
    Chazard, Emmanuel
    Babaousmail, Djaber
    Schaffar, Aurelien
    Ficheur, Gregoire
    Beuscart, Regis
    [J]. DIGITAL HEALTHCARE EMPOWERING EUROPEANS, 2015, 210 : 867 - 871
  • [22] ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY AND SAFETY INDICATORS OF DRINKING AND PROCESS WATER
    Lovkis, Zenon, V
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF BELARUS-AGRARIAN SERIES, 2023, 61 (01): : 78 - 86
  • [23] Resilience Engineering Indicators and Safety Management: A Systematic Review
    Ranasinghe, Udara
    Jefferies, Marcus
    Davis, Peter
    Pillay, Manikam
    [J]. SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK, 2020, 11 (02) : 127 - 135
  • [24] A comprehensive systematic review of safety leading indicators in construction
    Golabchi, Hamidreza
    Abellanosa, Abbey Dale
    Lefsrud, Lianne
    Pereira, Estacio
    Mohamed, Yasser
    [J]. SAFETY SCIENCE, 2024, 172
  • [25] A review of different approaches for developing process safety indicators
    Monteiro, G. P.
    Frutuoso e Melo, P. F.
    [J]. ADVANCES IN SAFETY, RELIABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT, 2012, : 3000 - 3008
  • [26] Quality Indicators in the Perioperative Period Specific to the Practice of Anesthesiology: An Umbrella Review
    Nguyen, Frederic
    Liao, Gary
    McIsaac, Daniel I.
    Lalu, Manoj M.
    Pysyk, Christopher
    Hamilton, Gavin M.
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2021, 132 (5S_SUPPL): : 920 - 921
  • [27] Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review
    Maes-Carballo, Marta
    Gomez-Fandino, Yolanda
    Reinoso-Hermida, Ayla
    Estrada-Lopez, Carlos Roberto
    Martin-Diaz, Manuel
    Khan, Khalid Saeed
    Bueno-Cavanillas, Aurora
    [J]. BREAST, 2021, 59 : 221 - 231
  • [28] Quality Indicators in Surgical Palliative Care: A Systematic Review
    Lee, Katherine C.
    Sokas, Claire M.
    Streid, Jocelyn
    Senglaub, Steven S.
    Coogan, Kathleen
    Walling, Anne M.
    Cooper, Zara
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2021, 62 (03) : 545 - 558
  • [29] Quality Indicators for Palliative Care: Update of a Systematic Review
    De Roo, Maaike L.
    Leemans, Kathleen
    Claessen, Susanne J. J.
    Cohen, Joachim
    Pasman, H. Roeline W.
    Deliens, Luc
    Francke, Anneke L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2013, 46 (04) : 556 - 572
  • [30] Quality Indicators in the Clinical Specialty of Urology: A Systematic Review
    Koh, Harvey Jia Wei
    Whitelock-Wainwright, Emma
    Gasevic, Dragan
    Rankin, David
    Romero, Lorena
    Frydenberg, Mark
    Evans, Sue
    Talic, Stella
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2023, 9 (03): : 435 - 446