[Evaluation of healthcare quality for acute cerebrovascular disease in the context of the service level agreement]. / Evaluación de la calidad de la atención a la enfermedad cerebrovascular aguda en el marco del contrato programa.

BACKGROUND: The service level agreement establishes the quality requirements for those services contracted by the Basque Government Health Department from Osakidetza-Servicio Vasco de Salud. Acute cerebrovascular disease (ACVD) is one of the care processes with quality specifications. OBJECTIVE: To outline the procedure adopted to evaluate ACVD care and the results obtained in four hospitals in Vizcaya between 2003 and 2007. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 2003, a work group consisting of clinicians, hospital and quality assurance managers, and experts from the Regional Health Board chose a series of indicators which would be measured by an external auditor. This group reviews the results annually and sets objectives for the following financial year. RESULTS: The improvement in almost all the indicators has been significant, and those with high ratings from the beginning have maintained their level. The percentage of patients who had a CAT scan in the first six hours after arriving at hospital increased from 57% to 85%, and the administration of anticoagulants within 12 hours increased from 70% of cases to 90%. The fibrinolysis rate was 3.8% in two hospitals. The percentage of patients who began rehabilitation whilst admitted was less than 3%. CONCLUSIONS: After operating for five years, the procedure adopted, which involves collaboration between clinical, management and planning staff, has been shown to be viable and effective in improving the quality of ACVD care.

Development of explicit criteria for total knee replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and test an appropriateness of indications tool for total knee replacement (TKR) in patients with osteoarthritis. METHODS: Criteria were developed using a modified Delphi panel judgment. Another panel rated the same indications, and the results were compared with the main panel. Test-retest of the main panel was performed. Regression models were used to assess the contribution of each algorithm variable. A classification tree was developed. RESULTS: The procedure was considered appropriate in 167 (26.8%) scenarios, and there was agreement on 112 (67.1%) of them. When the rates of the main panel were compared with those of a second panel, the result was a kappa statistic of 0.75. The test-retest kappa for the main panel was 0.78. Neither in the first case nor in the second was there an instance in which a scenario classified as appropriate shifted to inappropriate or vice versa. The regression models showed that symptomatology and radiology were the variables that explained most of the variability of appropriateness as determined by panelists. In the classification tree performed, the probability of misclassification was 3.8% with 150 scenarios, of the 156 analyzed and classified correctly. CONCLUSIONS: The previous parameters tested showed acceptable results for an evaluation tool. These results support the use of this algorithm as an aid in formulating clinical practice guidelines and to promote the appropriateness of TKR.