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
  • [31] Quality Indicators in Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review
    Kennedy, Angeliki
    Bakir, Christina
    Brauer, Carmen A.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2012, 470 (04) : 1124 - 1132
  • [32] A systematic review of multidisciplinary colorectal cancer quality indicators
    Donnelly, Candice
    Or, Michelle
    Thevaraja, Mathushan
    Chiew, Kim-Lin
    Vinod, Shalini
    Toh, James
    Sundaresan, Puma
    [J]. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 16 : 147 - 147
  • [33] Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review
    Fujita, Kenji
    Moles, Rebekah J.
    Chen, Timothy F.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2018, 8 (07):
  • [34] Quality indicators for community dementia care: a systematic review
    Dequanter, Samantha
    Buyl, Ronald
    Fobelets, Maaike
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 30 (05): : 879 - 885
  • [35] 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.
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 29 (09) : 1963 - 1985
  • [36] Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
    S.C. Voeten
    P. Krijnen
    D.M. Voeten
    J.H. Hegeman
    M.W.J.M. Wouters
    I.B. Schipper
    [J]. Osteoporosis International, 2018, 29 : 1963 - 1985
  • [37] Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review
    Edwards, J. J.
    Khanna, M.
    Jordan, K. P.
    Jordan, J. L.
    Bedson, J.
    Dziedzic, K. S.
    [J]. ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 2015, 74 (03) : 490 - 498
  • [38] Patient safety indicators for acute care hospitals: a systematic review
    Duarte de Gouvea, Carla Simone
    Travassos, Claudia
    [J]. CADERNOS DE SAUDE PUBLICA, 2010, 26 (06): : 1061 - 1078
  • [39] Quality indicators for anesthesia and perioperative medicine
    Wacker, Johannes
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2023, 36 (02) : 208 - 215
  • [40] Scaling up of safety and quality improvement interventions in perioperative care: a systematic scoping review of implementation strategies and effectiveness
    White, Michelle C.
    Ahuja, Shalini
    Peven, Kimberly
    McLean, Susanna Ritchie
    Hadi, Dina
    Okonkwo, Ijeoma
    Clancy, Olivia
    Turner, Maryann
    Henry, Jaymie Claire Ang
    Sevdalis, Nick
    [J]. BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH, 2022, 7 (10):