Mapping Quality Indicators to Assess Older Adult Health and Care in Community-, Continuing-, and Acute-Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Reviews and Guidelines

Author:

Karimi-Dehkordi Mehri1ORCID,Hanson Heather M.2ORCID,Kennedy Megan3ORCID,Wagg Adrian4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Keyano College, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada

2. Provincial Seniors Health and Continuing Care, Alberta Health Services, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada

3. Geoffrey and Robyn Sperber Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada

4. Provincial Seniors Health and Continuing Care, Alberta Health Services, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada

Abstract

Quality indicators (QIs) play a vital role in enhancing the care of older adults. This study aimed to identify existing QIs relevant to the health and care of older adults in community-care, continuing-care, and acute-care settings, along with available information such as definitions and calculation methods. A systematic review of published review studies, grey literature, and guidelines was undertaken, utilizing six electronic databases searched for materials dated from 2010 to 2 June 2023. To be included in this study, the literature had to provide data on QIs in a setting involving older adults. This study included 27 reviews and 44 grey literature sources, identifying a total of 6391 QIs. The highest number of indicators (37%) were relevant to continuing care; 32% and 28% were pertinent to community- and acute-care settings, respectively. The process domain had the highest number of QIs (3932), while the structure domain had the fewest indicators (521). A total of 39 focus areas were identified, with the five most common areas being, in descending order, orthopedics/hip fractures, end-of-life/palliative care, appropriate prescribing, neurocognitive conditions, and cardiovascular conditions; these areas ranged between 10% and 6%. When mapped against the Quadruple Aim framework, most QIs (85%) were linked to improving health outcomes. This inclusive compilation of QIs serves as a resource for addressing various focus areas pertinent to the Quadruple Aims. However, few quality indicators have been designed to provide a comprehensive and thorough evaluation of a specific aspect, taking into account all three key domains: structure, process, and outcomes. Addressing the description and psychometric properties of QIs is foundational for ensuring their trustworthiness and effective application.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Reference87 articles.

1. World Health Organization (2021). Ageing and Health, World Health Organization.

2. Quality Indicators for Older Persons’ Transitions in Care: A Systematic Review and Delphi Process;Tate;Can. J. Aging,2022

3. Living Longer within Ageing Societies;Harper;J. Popul. Ageing,2019

4. Empowering Patients to Choose Appropriate and Safe Hospital Services;Zikos;Stud. Health Technol.,2016

5. Quality indicators for dementia and older people nearing the end of life: A systematic review;Yorganci;J. Am. Geriatr. Soc.,2021

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3