Quality indicators for in-hospital management of exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of an international Delphi study.

AIM: To report a Delphi study that was conducted to select process and outcome indicators that are relevant to study quality of care and impact of care pathways for patients hospitalized with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. BACKGROUND: Management of patients hospitalized with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is suboptimal and outcomes are poor. To evaluate the impact of care pathways properly, relevant indicators need to be selected. DESIGN: Delphi study. METHODS: The study was conducted over 4 months in 2008, with 35 experts out of 15 countries, including 19 medical doctors, 8 nurses and 8 physiotherapists. Participants were asked to rate, for 72 process and 21 outcome indicators, the relevance for follow-up in care pathways for in-hospital management of exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Consensus (agreement by at least 75% of the participants) that an indicator is relevant for follow-up was sought in two rounds. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 26 of 72 process indicators (36·1%) and 10 of 21 outcome indicators (47·6%). Highest consensus levels were found for the process indicators regarding oxygen therapy (100%), pulmonary rehabilitation (100%) and patient education (94·5-88·6%) and for the outcome indicators concerning understanding of therapy (91·4-85·7%) and self-management (88·6-88·2%). CONCLUSION: The selected indicators appear to be sensitive for improvement. Therefore, researchers and clinicians that want to study and improve the care for patients hospitalized with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease should primarily focus on these indicators.

The effect of care pathways for hip fractures: a systematic review.

We performed a systematic review for primary studies on care pathways (CPs) for hip fracture (HF). The online databases MEDLINE-PubMed, Ovid-EMBASE, CINAHL-EBSCO host, and The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched. Two researchers reviewed the literature independently. Primary studies that met predefined inclusion criteria were assessed for their methodological quality. A total of 15 publications were included: 15 primary studies corresponding with 12 main investigations. Primary studies were evaluated for clinical outcomes, process outcomes, and economic outcomes. The studies assessed a wide range of outcome measures. While a number of divergent clinical outcomes were reported, most studies showed positive results of process management and health-services utilization. In terms of mortality, the results provided evidence for a positive impact of CPs on in-hospital mortality. Most studies also showed a significantly reduced risk of complications, including medical complications, wound infections, and pressure sores. Moreover, time-span process measures showed that an improvement in the organization of care was achieved through the use of CPs. Conflicting results were observed with regard to functional recovery and mobility between patients treated with CPs compared to usual care. Although our review suggests that CPs can have positive effects in patients with HF, the available evidence is insufficient for formal recommendations. There is a need for more research on CPs with selected process and outcome indicators, for in-hospital and postdischarge management of HF, with an emphasis on well-designed randomized trials.