Update and European consensus on a patient-centered core outcome set for multiple myeloma in clinical practice and research.

Not available.

Unexpectedly long hospital stays as an indicator of risk of unsafe care: an exploratory study.

OBJECTIVES: We developed an outcome indicator based on the finding that complications often prolong the patient's hospital stay. A higher percentage of patients with an unexpectedly long length of stay (UL-LOS) compared to the national average may indicate shortcomings in patient safety. We explored the utility of the UL-LOS indicator. SETTING: We used data of 61 Dutch hospitals. In total these hospitals had 1 400 000 clinical discharges in 2011. PARTICIPANTS: The indicator is based on the percentage of patients with a prolonged length of stay of more than 50% of the expected length of stay and calculated among survivors. INTERVENTIONS: No interventions were made. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were the variability of the indicator across hospitals, the stability over time, the correlation between the UL-LOS and standardised mortality and the influence on the indicator of hospitals that did have problems discharging their patients to other health services such as nursing homes. RESULTS: In order to compare hospitals properly the expected length of stay was computed based on comparison with benchmark populations. The standardisation was based on patients' age, primary diagnosis and main procedure. The UL-LOS indicator showed considerable variability between the Dutch hospitals: from 8.6% to 20.1% in 2011. The outcomes had relatively small CIs since they were based on large numbers of patients. The stability of the indicator over time was quite high. The indicator had a significant positive correlation with the standardised mortality (r=0.44 (p<0.001)), and no significant correlation with the percentage of patients that was discharged to other facilities than other hospitals and home (r=-0.15 (p>0.05)). CONCLUSIONS: The UL-LOS indicator is a useful addition to other patient safety indicators by revealing variation between hospitals and areas of possible patient safety improvement.

Classifying indicators of quality: a collaboration between Dutch and English regulators.

INTRODUCTION: Many approaches to measuring quality in healthcare exist, generally employing indicators or metrics. While there are important differences, most of these approaches share three key areas of measurement: safety, effectiveness and patient experience. The European Partnership for Supervisory Organisations in Health Services and Social Care (EPSO) exists as a working group and discussion forum for European regulators. This group undertook to identify a common framework within which European approaches to indicators could be compared. APPROACH: A framework was developed to classify indicators, using four sets of criteria: conceptualization of quality, Donabedian definition (structure, process, outcome), data type (derivable, collectable from routine sources, special collections, samples) and data use (judgement (singular or part of framework) benchmarking, risk assessment). Indicators from English and Dutch hospital measurement programmes were put into the framework, showing areas of agreement and levels of comparability. In the first instance, results are only illustrative. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The EPSO has been a powerful driver for undertaking cross-European research, and this project is the first of many to take advantage of the access to international expertize. It has shown that through development of a framework that deconstructs national indicators, commonalities can be identified. Future work will attempt to incorporate other nations' indicators, and attempt cross-national comparison.