ABSTRACT
(1) Background: In the "post-COVID-19 era", there is a need to focus on properly assessing and addressing the extent of its well-established mental health collateral damage. The "Electronic Mental Wellness Tool" (E-mwTool) is a 13-item validated stepped-care or stratified management instrument that aims at the high-sensitivity captures of individuals with mental health disorders to determine the need for mental health care. This study validated the E-mwTool in a Spanish-speaking population. (2) Methods: It is a cross-sectional validation study using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview as a criterion standard in a sample of 433 participants. (3) Results: About 72% of the sample had a psychiatric disorder, and 67% had a common mental disorder. Severe mental disorders, alcohol use disorders, substance use disorders, and suicide risk had a much lower prevalence rate (6.7%, 6.2%, 3.2%, and 6.2%, respectively). The first three items performed excellently in identifying any mental health disorder with 0.97 sensitivity. Ten additional items classified participants with common mental disorders, severe mental disorders, substance use disorders, and suicide risk. (4) Conclusions: The E-mwTool had high sensitivity in identifying common mental disorders, alcohol and substance use disorders, and suicidal risk. However, the tool's sensitivity in detecting low-prevalence disorders in the sample was low. This Spanish version may be useful to detect patients at risk of mental health burden at the front line of primary and secondary care in facilitating help-seeking and referral by their physicians.
Subject(s)
Alcoholism , COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , Substance-Related Disorders , Humans , Mental Health , Cross-Sectional Studies , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Mass ScreeningABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Failure-to-rescue measures a hospital's response capacity to avoid the death of a patient after a complication. The aim of this study was to validate the use of prolonged length of stay to calculate failure-to-rescue rates as a substitute for traditional coding of complications in colorectal cancer surgery. METHOD: We performed a cross-sectional between-instruments agreement study. Our study population was comprised of 204 colorectal cancer surgical patients from a public academic hospital during 2017 and 2018. We obtained two failure-to-rescue indicators from administrative data: an indicator using International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition, (ICD-10) codes; and another one using a cut-off point of prolonged length of stay as a predictor of patients with complications. Then, they were compared with a reference indicator from clinical records. RESULTS: Failure-to-rescue rates were between 10 and 13.64 for the study site depending on which indicator was used. A hospital stay ≥10 days had the maximum Youden's index (0.6) and an area under the ROC curve of 0.87. This was used in the failure-to-rescue indicator using prolonged length, which obtained the highest agreement (any coefficient >0.75). CONCLUSION: ICD-10 codes identified complications poorly. Prolonged length of stay could be a valid replacement of ICD-10 codes when measuring failure-to-rescue in administrative databases for colorectal surgical patients.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Colorectal Surgery , Digestive System Surgical Procedures , Humans , Length of Stay , Cross-Sectional Studies , Digestive System Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Colorectal Neoplasms/complications , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiologyABSTRACT
Background: Depression, anxiety, well-being, and suicidality are highly associated during adolescence and greatly predict mental health outcomes during adulthood. This study explored relationships between these variables among students from Mexico City.Methods: This representative cross-sectional study was carried out in education centers in Mexico City during the 2019-2020 academic year. Using a smartphone app, we implemented validated questionnaires for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index), and risk of suicide (Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale). Partial least squares structural equation modeling was performed for the entire sample and after stratifying by gender.Results: Out of 3,042 students, 1,686 were females; mean age of the sample was 17.3 years. Compared to males, females had higher levels of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation and lower levels of self-perceived well-being. Structural equation models indicated that depression was the main predictor of the rest of the outcomes in the overall sample. The role of anxiety was heterogeneous across genders and not clearly correlated to suicidal behavior or well-being.Conclusions: Large-scale mental health screening using an online tool proved feasible, with high response rates. Depression was the most important factor influencing anxiety, suicidal behavior, and well-being in Mexican high school students. The roles of depression and anxiety were heterogeneous across genders.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04067076.
Subject(s)
Suicidal Ideation , Suicide , Adolescent , Adult , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Anxiety Disorders , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health , Mexico , Smartphone , Students/psychology , Suicide/psychology , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify quality indicators described in the literature that may be used as quality measures in hospital physical therapy units. METHODS: The following sources were searched for quality indicators or articles: Web of Science, MEDLINE, IBECS, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Academic Search Complete, SportDiscus, SciELO, PsychINFO, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, and Scopus databases; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Health System Indicator Portal, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development websites; and the National Quality Forum's measures inventory tool. Search terms included "quality indicator," "quality measure," "physiotherapy," and "physical therapy." Inclusion criteria were articles written in English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese aimed at measuring the quality of care in hospital physical therapy units. Evidence-based indicators with an explicit formula were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and then classified using the structure-process-outcome model, quality domain, and categories defined by a consensus method. RESULTS: Of the 176 articles identified, only 19 met the criteria. From these articles and from the indicator repository searches, 178 clinical care indicators were included in the qualitative synthesis and presented in this paper. Process and outcome measures were prevalent, and 5 out of the 6 quality domains were represented. No efficiency measures were identified. Moreover, structure indicators, equity and accessibility indicators, and indicators in the cardiovascular and circulatory, mental health, pediatrics, and intensive care categories were underrepresented. CONCLUSIONS: A broad selection of quality indicators was identified from international resources, which can be used to measure the quality of physical therapy care in hospital units. IMPACT: This review identified 178 quality of care indicators that can be used in clinical practice monitoring and quality improvement of hospital physical therapy units. The results highlight a lack of accessibility, equity, and efficiency measures for physical therapy units.
Subject(s)
Hospital Units/standards , Physical Therapy Modalities/standards , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Humans , Quality ImprovementABSTRACT
Objetivo. Evaluar la calidad de la atención a neonatos con indicadores de proceso, en patologías seleccionadas. Ma-terial y métodos. Evaluación multicéntrica, transversal de nueve indicadores en 28 hospitales de 11 entidades de México. Se utilizó Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) para estándares de calidad y muestra por hospital. Casos seleccio-nados al azar del Subsistema Automatizado de Egresos Hos-pitalarios. Se clasifican hospitales como "cumplimiento con estándar"/"no cumplimiento" por indicador y, cumplimiento con IC95% exacto binomial, regional y nacional, según mues-treo estratificado no proporcional. Resultados. Ningún indicador cumple el estándar de 75% en hospitales, con 0 a 19 hospitales que cumplen, según indicador. Excepto la iden-tificación oportuna de asfixia perinatal e inicio de antibiótico correcto en sospecha de sepsis temprana, el cumplimiento es <50% en todos los demás indicadores. Conclusiones. La calidad de la atención a neonatos en hospitales es heterogé-nea y deficiente. Se proponen indicadores para monitorizar iniciativas de mejora.
Subject(s)
Hospitalization , Infant Care , Quality of Health Care , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitals, Public , Humans , Infant Care/standards , Infant, Newborn , Mexico , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Resumen: Objetivo: Evaluar la calidad de la atención a neonatos con indicadores de proceso, en patologías seleccionadas. Material y métodos: Evaluación multicéntrica, transversal de nueve indicadores en 28 hospitales de 11 entidades de México. Se utilizó Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) para estándares de calidad y muestra por hospital. Casos seleccionados al azar del Subsistema Automatizado de Egresos Hospitalarios. Se clasifican hospitales como "cumplimiento con estándar"/"no cumplimiento" por indicador y, cumplimiento con IC95% exacto binomial, regional y nacional, según muestreo estratificado no proporcional. Resultados: Ningún indicador cumple el estándar de 75% en hospitales, con 0 a 19 hospitales que cumplen, según indicador. Excepto la identificación oportuna de asfixia perinatal e inicio de antibiótico correcto en sospecha de sepsis temprana, el cumplimiento es <50% en todos los demás indicadores. Conclusiones: La calidad de la atención a neonatos en hospitales es heterogénea y deficiente. Se proponen indicadores para monitorizar iniciativas de mejora.
Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the quality of care to newborns with process indicators, in selected pathologies. Materials and methods: Multi-centric, cross-sectional evaluation of 9 indicators in 28 hospitals in 11 States of Mexico. Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) was used for quality standards and sample per hospital. Randomly selected cases from the Automated Hospital Discharge Subsystem. The hospitals are classified as "standard compliance"/"non-compliance" by indicator and, compliance with 95%CI exact binomial, regional and national, according to non-proportional stratified sampling. Results: No indicator meets the standard of 75% in hospitals, with range from 0 to 19 hospitals that meet, according to indicator. Except for timely identification of perinatal asphyxia and onset of correct antibiotics in suspected early sepsis, the compliance is <50% on all other indicators. Conclusions: The quality of care for newborns in hospitals is heterogeneous and poor. Indicators are proposed to monitor improvement initiatives.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop risk-adjusted models for two quality indicators addressing surgical site infection (SSI) in clean and colorectal surgery, to be used for benchmarking and quality improvement in the Spanish National Health System. STUDY DESIGN: A literature review was undertaken to identify candidate adjustment variables. The candidate variables were revised by clinical experts to confirm their clinical relevance to SSI; experts also offered additional candidate variables that were not identified in the literature review. Two risk-adjustment models were developed using multiple logistic regression thus allowing calculation of the adjusted indicator rates. DATA SOURCE: The two SSI indicators, with their corresponding risk-adjustment models, were calculated from administrative databases obtained from nine public hospitals. A dataset was obtained from a 10-year period (2006-2015), and it included data from 21 571 clean surgery patients and 6325 colorectal surgery patients. ANALYSIS METHODS: Risk-adjustment regression models were constructed using Spanish National Health System data. Models were analysed so as to prevent overfitting, then tested for calibration and discrimination and finally bootstrapped. RESULTS: Ten adjustment variables were identified for clean surgery SSI, and 23 for colorectal surgery SSI. The final adjustment models showed fair calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow: clean surgery χ2 = 6.56, P = 0.58; colorectal surgery χ2 = 6.69, P = 0.57) and discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve: clean surgery 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.77; colorectal surgery 0.62, 95% CI 0.60-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed risk-adjustment models can be used to explain patient-based differences among healthcare providers. They can be used to adjust the two proposed SSI indicators.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Surgery , Surgical Wound Infection , Colorectal Surgery/adverse effects , Humans , Logistic Models , Retrospective Studies , Risk Adjustment , Risk Factors , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Mental disorders represent the second cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Suicide mortality has been targeted as a key public health concern by the WHO. Smartphone technology provides a huge potential to develop massive and fast surveys. Given the vast cultural diversity of Mexico and its abrupt orography, smartphone-based resources are invaluable in order to adequately manage resources, services and preventive measures in the population. The objective of this study is to conduct a universal suicide risk screening in a rural area of Mexico, measuring also other mental health outcomes such as depression, anxiety and alcohol and substance use disorders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A population-based cross-sectional study with a temporary sampling space of 9 months will be performed between September 2019 and June 2020. We expect to recruit a large percentage of the target population (at least 70%) in a short-term survey of Milpa Alta Delegation, which accounts for 137 927 inhabitants in a territorial extension of 288 km2.They will be recruited via an institutional call and a massive public campaign to fill in an online questionnaire through mobile-assisted or computer-assisted web app. This questionnaire will include data on general health, validated questionnaires including Well-being Index 5, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale 2, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, selected questions of the Drug Abuse Screening Test and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scales and Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) questions about self-harm.We will take into account information regarding time to mobile app response and geo-spatial location, and aggregated data on social, demographical and environmental variables. Traditional regression modelling, multilevel mixed methods and data-driven machine learning approaches will be used to test hypotheses regarding suicide risk factors at the individual and the population level. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval (002/2019) was granted by the Ethics Review Board of the Hospital Psiquiátrico Yucatán, Yucatán (Mexico). This protocol has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. The starting date of the study is 3 September 2019. Results will serve for the planning and healthcare of groups with greater mental health needs and will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant mental health conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04067063.
Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Smartphone , Suicidal Ideation , Surveys and Questionnaires , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Internet , Mental Health , Mexico/epidemiology , Rural Population , Suicide/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyze quantity and quality of the information reported by Mexico to OECD in relation to health indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of frequency of indicators reporting, data quality, and comparison of reported values in the OECD environment. RESULTS: We analyzed 191 indicators. Mexico reported annually (2010-2016) 52.9% of them. Never reported 45.5%. The highest frequency of not reported (84%) is in the "Quality of care" group. Among the reported, information is of poor quality in 28.7% of them. Comparatively, Mexico holds the worst results in OECD indicators on screening of cancer, child and in-hospital mortality from myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for diabetes, among others. CONCLUSIONS: Mexico has problems of lack and quality of reported information, and frequently unfavorable values among OECD countries. The information system needs improvement, in both quantity and quality of data, and its effective utilization.
OBJETIVO: Analizar cantidad y calidad de la información sobre indicadores de salud reportada por México a la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE). MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Análisis de frecuencia de indicadores reportados, calidad de los datos y comparación de valores reportados en el entorno OCDE. RESULTADOS: Se analizan 191 indicadores. México reportó anualmente (2010-2016) 52.9% de ellos. Nunca reportó 45.5%. La mayor frecuencia de no reportados (84%) es en el grupo "Calidad de la atención". En los reportados, la información es de calidad deficiente en 28.7%. Comparativamente, México ostenta los peores resultados de OCDE en indicadores sobre tamizaje de cáncer, mortalidad infantil e intrahospitalaria por infarto de miocardio y hospitalización por diabetes, entre otros. CONCLUSIONES: México tiene problemas de carencia y calidad de la información reportada y valores frecuentemente desfavorables en el entorno OCDE. Se requiere mejorar el sistema de información incidiendo tanto en cantidad como en calidad de los datos, y su utilización efectiva.
Subject(s)
Health Information Systems/standards , Health Status Indicators , Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development , Databases, Factual , Emigration and Immigration , Health Personnel , Health Resources , Health Services Needs and Demand , Health Status , Humans , MexicoABSTRACT
Resumen: Objetivo: Analizar cantidad y calidad de la información sobre indicadores de salud reportada por México a la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE). Material y métodos: Análisis de frecuencia de indicadores reportados, calidad de los datos y comparación de valores reportados en el entorno OCDE. Resultados: Se analizan 191 indicadores. México reportó anualmente (2010-2016) 52.9% de ellos. Nunca reportó 45.5%. La mayor frecuencia de no reportados (84%) es en el grupo "Calidad de la atención". En los reportados, la información es de calidad deficiente en 28.7%. Comparativamente, México ostenta los peores resultados de OCDE en indicadores sobre tamizaje de cáncer, mortalidad infantil e intrahospitalaria por infarto de miocardio y hospitalización por diabetes, entre otros. Conclusiones: México tiene problemas de carencia y calidad de la información reportada y valores frecuentemente desfavorables en el entorno OCDE. Se requiere mejorar el sistema de información incidiendo tanto en cantidad como en calidad de los datos, y su utilización efectiva.
Abstract: Objective: To analyze quantity and quality of the information reported by Mexico to OECD in relation to health indicators. Materials and methods: Analysis of frequency of indicators reporting, data quality, and comparison of reported values in the OECD environment. Results: We analyzed 191 indicators. Mexico reported annually (2010-2016) 52.9% of them. Never reported 45.5%. The highest frequency of not reported (84%) is in the "Quality of care" group. Among the reported, information is of poor quality in 28.7% of them. Comparatively, Mexico holds the worst results in OECD indicators on screening of cancer, child and in-hospital mortality from myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for diabetes, among others. Conclusions: Mexico has problems of lack and quality of reported information, and frequently unfavorable values among OECD countries. The information system needs improvement, in both quantity and quality of data, and its effective utilization.
Subject(s)
Humans , Health Status Indicators , Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development , Health Information Systems/standards , Health Status , Databases, Factual , Health Personnel , Emigration and Immigration , Health Resources , Health Services Needs and Demand , MexicoABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Research and different organizations have proposed indicators to monitor the quality of maternal and child healthcare, such indicators are used for different purposes. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of indicators for the central phases of the maternal and child healthcare continuum of care (pregnancy, childbirth, newborn care and postpartum). METHOD: A search conducted using international repositories, national and international indicator sets, scientific articles published between 2012 and 2016, and grey literature. The eligibility criteria was documents in Spanish or English with indicators to monitor aspects of the continuum of care phases of interest. The identified indicators were characterized as follows: formula, justification, evidence level, pilot study, indicator type, phase of the continuum, intended organizational level of application, level of care, and income level of the countries. Selection was based on the characteristics associated with scientific soundness (formula, evidence level, and reliability). RESULTS: We identified 1791 indicators. Three hundred forty-six were duplicated, which resulted in 1445 indicators for analysis. Only 6.7% indicators exhibited all requirements for scientific soundness. The distribution by the classifying variables is clearly uneven, with a predominance of indicators for childbirth, hospital care and facility level. CONCLUSIONS: There is a broad choice of indicators for maternal and child healthcare. However, most indicators lack demonstrated scientific soundness and refer to particular continuum phases and levels within the healthcare system. Additional efforts are needed to identify good indicators for a comprehensive maternal and child healthcare monitoring system.
Subject(s)
Maternal Health Services/standards , Postnatal Care/standards , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Quality of Health Care , Continuity of Patient Care , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Humans , Infant Health , Infant, Newborn , Maternal Health , Parturition , Perinatal Care/standards , Pregnancy , Prenatal Care/standardsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is little empirical research on the potential benefit that electronic patient portals (EPP) can have on the care quality and health outcomes of diverse multi-ethnic international populations. The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which an EPP was associated with improvements in health service use. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental interrupted time-series approach, we assessed health service use before (April 2012-September 2015) and after (October 2015-December 2016) the implementation of a comprehensive EPP at four hospitals in Madrid, Spain. Primary outcomes were number of outpatient visits, any hospital admission, any 30-day all-cause readmission and any emergency department visit. RESULTS: Implementation of the EPP was associated with a significant decline in readmissions. Among patients with chronic heart failure, EPP implementation was associated with a significant decline for all outcome measures, and among patients with COPD, a decline in all outcomes except readmissions. Among patients diagnosed with malignant hematological diseases, no significant changes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: EPPs hold promise for reducing hospital readmissions. Certain patient populations with chronic conditions may differentially benefit from portal use depending on their needs for communication with their providers.
Subject(s)
Patient Portals , Utilization Review , Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , Chronic Disease , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Research , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , SpainABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to address the current relative void of valid measures by developing evidence-based quality indicators for pain management of chronic nonmalignant pain. METHODS: We performed a 10-year literature search to identify guidelines and review articles on chronic pain management to identify evidence-based recommendations for the different conditions associated to chronic pain. A complementary search of indicators and indicator-related articles was also performed. Then, we built new indicators or adapted existing ones to cover all the evidence-based recommendations we found. The resulting set was pilot tested for feasibility, reliability (kappa), and usefulness to identify quality problems, using the Lot Quality Acceptance method (α ≤ 0.05 and ß ≤ 0.01) for 75% (40% threshold) and 95% (70% threshold) compliance standards, and estimates with binomial exact 95% confidence intervals. We reviewed clinical records from a primary care center, a medium-size hospital (250 beds), and a large hospital (500 beds). RESULTS: Forty-six indicators were developed (6 general and 40 condition specific). Thirty-three were feasible in primary care and/or hospitals. Feasible indicators were also reliable (most kappa > 0.7). Regarding compliance, 4 quality indicators obtained compliance levels over 60%, addressing pharmacological treatment, multimodal approach, and appropriate use of neuro-image tests, while 16 obtained compliance scores under 15% (6 with 0% compliance). CONCLUSIONS: The created set has tested to be feasible, reliable, and useful, with the capacity to serve as the baseline for developing the necessary strategies to improve the management of chronic nonmalignant pain, by monitoring and evaluating quality of care.
Subject(s)
Chronic Pain/therapy , Pain Management/methods , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Humans , Pilot Projects , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the "Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) Collaboration" in 2012. The SCC is designed to contribute to quality care by providing reminders of evidence-based practices for the prevention and management of the leading causes of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. However, indicators to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the SCC have not been defined. This study aimed to produce and pilot test a set of valid, reliable and feasible indicators to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the SCC, with an emphasis on best practices. METHODS: As part of the WHO Collaboration, the SCC was adapted to the Mexican context, and a set of indicators was developed to assess the SCC use and adherence to SCC-related best practices. The indicators were pilot tested in three hospitals for feasibility and reliability using the prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa index (PABAK) for multiple independent evaluators (initial sample, n = 47; second sample, n = 30 to re-test reliability). The data sources were clinical records and cognitive tests drawn from questionnaires to mothers and health professionals. RESULTS: We generated 53 indicators, and 38 of the indicators (those related to best practices and outcomes) were pilot tested. Of these, 26 relate to care for the mother (20 were measured based on clinical records and 6 via questionnaire), and 12 relate to newborn care (9 were medical record-based and 3 were from questionnaires). Feasible indicators were generally also reliable (PABAK≥0.6). Routine feasibility is affected by the frequency of assessed events. CONCLUSIONS: The generated indicators allow an assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of the SCC and the monitoring of quality of care during childbirth and the immediate postpartum period.
Subject(s)
Checklist/standards , Delivery, Obstetric/standards , Health Plan Implementation , Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards , World Health Organization , Feasibility Studies , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Information Storage and Retrieval/methods , Maternal Health Services/standards , Mothers/statistics & numerical data , Parturition , Pilot Projects , Pregnancy , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires/standardsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:: To select, pilot test and implement a set of indicators for tertiary public hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Quali-quantitative study in four stages: identification of indicators used internationally; selection and prioritization by utility, feasibility and reliability; exploration of the quality of sources of information in six hospitals; pilot feasibility and reliability, and follow-up measurement. RESULTS:: From 143 indicators, 64 were selected and eight were prioritized. The scan revealed sources of information deficient. In the pilot, three indicators were feasible with reliability limited. Has conducted workshops to improve records and sources of information; nine hospitals reported measurements of a quarter. CONCLUSIONS:: Eight priority indicators could not be measured immediately due to limitations in the data sources for its construction. It is necessary to improve mechanisms of registration and processing of data in this group of hospital.
Subject(s)
Hospitals, Public/standards , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Tertiary Care Centers/standards , Humans , Mexico , Pilot Projects , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Resumen: Objetivo: Seleccionar, pilotar e implementar un set de indicadores para hospitales públicos de tercer nivel. Material y métodos: Estudio cuali-cuantitativo en cuatro etapas: identificación de indicadores usados internacionalmente; selección y priorización por utilidad, factibilidad y confiabilidad; exploración de la calidad de fuentes de información en seis hospitales y piloto de factibilidad y fiabilidad, y medición de seguimiento. Resultados: De 143 indicadores, se seleccionaron 64 y priorizaron ocho. La exploración reveló fuentes de información deficientes. En el piloto, tres indicadores resultaron factibles con fiabilidad limitada. Se realizaron talleres para mejorar registros y fuentes de información; nueve hospitales reportaron mediciones de un trimestre. Conclusiones: No fue posible medir los ocho indicadores priorizados de forma inmediata debido a limitaciones en las fuentes de datos para su construcción. Es necesario mejorar mecanismos de registro y procesamiento de datos en este grupo de hospitales.
Abstract: Objective: To select, pilot test and implement a set of indicators for tertiary public hospitals. Materials and methods: Quali-quantitative study in four stages: identification of indicators used internationally; selection and prioritization by utility, feasibility and reliability; exploration of the quality of sources of information in six hospitals; pilot feasibility and reliability, and follow-up measurement. Results: From 143 indicators, 64 were selected and eight were prioritized. The scan revealed sources of information deficient. In the pilot, three indicators were feasible with reliability limited. Has conducted workshops to improve records and sources of information; nine hospitals reported measurements of a quarter. Conclusions: Eight priority indicators could not be measured immediately due to limitations in the data sources for its construction. It is necessary to improve mechanisms of registration and processing of data in this group of hospital.
Subject(s)
Humans , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Tertiary Care Centers/standards , Hospitals, Public/standards , Pilot Projects , Retrospective Studies , MexicoABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN: En la actualidad no se dispone de un conjunto adecuado de indicadores para benchmarking en las unidades de cirugía general del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Este trabajo presenta la selección, el desarrollo y los resultados del estudio piloto de un primer grupo de indicadores para esta finalidad. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una selección y priorización de indicadores mediante un Delphi modificado con un grupo de expertos de la Asociación Española de Cirujanos. Los indicadores priorizados fueron sometidos a un estudio cualitativo de factibilidad y, para aquellos medidos por historia clínica, cuali-cuantitativo de fiabilidad en un hospital público. Se obtuvieron resultados de concordancia simple y estadístico kappa, ajustado y no ajustado por prevalencias y sesgos, para 3 evaluadores con un muestreo aleatorio sistemático de 30 casos por indicador. RESULTADOS: De los 13 indicadores propuestos, 12 resultaron factibles (5 de historia clínica y 7 de bases de datos). De los 5 de historia, 3 resultaron fiables (concordancia interobservador > 95% o índice kappa > 0,6 para compuestos y subindicadores, o bien kappa ajustado por prevalencias y sesgos > 0,6 en presencia de prevalencias extremas) y 2 necesitaron ser redefinidos a partir de los resultados obtenidos. CONCLUSIONES: Los 5 indicadores de historia clínica podrán utilizarse para comparar unidades quirúrgicas, mientras que los 7 indicadores factibles de bases de datos necesitarán mayor validación y ajuste de riesgo para permitir comparaciones entre servicios. Los resultados del centro evaluado muestran áreas de mejora en algunos procesos de la atención
INTRODUCTION:At present there is a lack of appropriate quality measures for benchmarking in general surgery units of Spanish National Health System. The aim of this study is to present the selection, development and pilot-testing of an initial set of surgical quality indicators for this purpose. METHODS: A modified Delphi was performed with experts from the Spanish Surgeons Association in order to prioritize previously selected indicators. Then, a pilot study was carried out in a public hospital encompassing qualitative analysis of feasibility for prioritized indicators and an additional qualitative and quantitative three-rater reliability assessment for medical record-based indicators. Observed inter-rater agreement, prevalence adjusted and bias adjusted kappa and non-adjusted kappa were performed, using a systematic random sample (n = 30) for each of these indicators. RESULTS: Twelve out of 13 proposed indicators were feasible: 5 medical record-based indicators and 7 indicators based on administrative databases. From medical record-based indicators, 3 were reliable (observed agreement > 95%, adjusted kappa index > 0.6 or non adjusted kappa index > 0.6 for composites and its components) and 2 needed further refinement. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, medical record-based indicators could be used for comparison purposes, whilst further research must be done for validation and risk-adjustment of outcome indicators from administrative databases. Compliance results in the adequacy of informed consent, diagnosis-to-treatment delay in colorectal cancer, and antibiotic prophylaxis show room for improvement in the pilot-tested hospital
Subject(s)
Humans , Benchmarking/methods , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Surgery Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Hospital Information Systems/organization & administration , General Surgery/organization & administration , Biomedical Enhancement/methods , Quality Improvement/organization & administrationABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: At present there is a lack of appropriate quality measures for benchmarking in general surgery units of Spanish National Health System. The aim of this study is to present the selection, development and pilot-testing of an initial set of surgical quality indicators for this purpose. METHODS: A modified Delphi was performed with experts from the Spanish Surgeons Association in order to prioritize previously selected indicators. Then, a pilot study was carried out in a public hospital encompassing qualitative analysis of feasibility for prioritized indicators and an additional qualitative and quantitative three-rater reliability assessment for medical record-based indicators. Observed inter-rater agreement, prevalence adjusted and bias adjusted kappa and non-adjusted kappa were performed, using a systematic random sample (n=30) for each of these indicators. RESULTS: Twelve out of 13 proposed indicators were feasible: 5 medical record-based indicators and 7 indicators based on administrative databases. From medical record-based indicators, 3 were reliable (observed agreement >95%, adjusted kappa index >0.6 or non-adjusted kappa index >0.6 for composites and its components) and 2 needed further refinement. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, medical record-based indicators could be used for comparison purposes, whilst further research must be done for validation and risk-adjustment of outcome indicators from administrative databases. Compliance results in the adequacy of informed consent, diagnosis-to-treatment delay in colorectal cancer, and antibiotic prophylaxis show room for improvement in the pilot-tested hospital.