[Development of an indicator set for the evaluation of the quality of routine ambulatory health care for common disorders in children and adolescents]. / Entwicklung eines Indikatorensets zur Evaluation der Versorgungsqualität in der ambulanten Routineversorgung häufiger Erkrankungen des Kindes- und Jugendalters.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, no consented quality indicator set (QI set) exists to date that can be used to assess the quality of pediatric care. Therefore, the aim of the project "Assessment of the quality of routine ambulatory health care for common disorders in children and adolescents" (QualiPäd) funded by the Innovation Committee of the Federal Joint Committee (grant no.: 01VSF19035) was to develop a QI set for the diseases asthma, atopic eczema, otitis media, tonsillitis, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression and conduct disorder. METHODS: For the observation period 2018/2019, quality indicators (QIs) were searched in indicator databases, guidelines and literature databases and complemented in part by newly formulated QIs (e.g., derived from guideline recommendations). The QIs were then assigned to content categories and dimensions according to Donabedian and OECD and reduced by removing duplicates. Finally, a panel of experts consulted the QIs using the modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). RESULTS: The search resulted in a preliminary QI set of 2324 QIs. After the reduction steps and the evaluation of the experts, 282 QIs were included in the QI set (asthma: 72 QIs, atopic eczema: 25 QIs, otitis media: 31 QIs, tonsillitis: 12 QIs, ADHD: 53 QIs, depression: 43 QIs, conduct disorder: 46 QIs). The QIs are distributed among the following different categories: Therapy (138 QIs), Diagnostics (95 QIs), Patient-reported outcome measures/Patient-reported experience measures (PROM/PREM) (45 QIs), Practice management (31 QIs), and Health reporting (4 QIs). In the Donabedian model, 89% of the QIs capture process quality, 9% outcome quality, and 2% structural quality; according to the OECD classification, 61% measure effectiveness, 23% patient-centeredness, and 16% safety of care. CONCLUSION: The consented QI set is currently being tested and can subsequently be used (possibly modified) to measure the quality of routine outpatient care for children and adolescents in Germany, in order to indicate the status quo and potential areas for improvement in outpatient care.

Process over outcome quality in paediatrics? An analysis of outpatient healthcare quality indicators for seven common diseases.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the scope, quality dimensions and treatment aspects covered by existing quality indicators (QIs) for the somatic diseases bronchial asthma, atopic eczema, otitis media and tonsillitis as well as the psychiatric disorders attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression and conduct disorder in paediatrics. METHODS: QIs were identified through an analysis of the guidelines and a systematic search of literature and indicator databases. Subsequently, two researchers independently assigned the QIs to the quality dimensions according to Donabedian and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and to the content categories covering the treatment process. RESULTS: We found 1268 QIs for bronchial asthma, 335 QIs for depression, 199 QIs for ADHD, 115 QIs for otitis media, 72 QIs for conduct disorder, 52 QIs for tonsillitis and 50 QIs for atopic eczema. Of these, 78% focused on process quality, 20% on outcome quality and 2% on structural quality. Using OECD criteria, 72% of the QIs were assigned to effectiveness, 17% to patient-centredness, 11% to patient safety and 1% to efficiency. The QIs covered the following categories: diagnostics (30%), therapy (38%), patient-reported outcome measures/ observer-reported outcome measures/patient-reported experience measures (in sum 11%), health monitoring (11%) and office management (11%). CONCLUSION: Most QIs focused on the dimensions of effectiveness and process quality, and on the categories of diagnostics and therapy, with outcome-focused and patient-focused QIs being under-represented. Possible reasons for this striking imbalance could be the easier measurability and clearer assignment of accountability in comparison to the QIs of outcome quality, patient-centredness and patient safety. To produce a more balanced picture of the quality of healthcare, the future development of QIs should prioritise the currently under-represented dimensions.