Multi-method versus single method appraisal of clinical quality indicators for the emergency medical services

Author:

Howard Ian12,Cameron Peter3,Castrén Maaret4,Wallis Lee25,Lindström Veronica67

Affiliation:

1. Department of Clinical Science and Education, Sjukhusbacken 10, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 171 77, Sweden

2. Division of Emergency Medicine, Private Bag X1, Matieland, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape 7602, South Africa

3. School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, 553 St Kilda Road, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia

4. Department of Emergency Medicine and Services, Topeliuksenkatu 5, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki 00280, Finland

5. Division of Emergency Medicine, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7700, South Africa

6. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Section of Nursing, Nobels väg 5, Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 171 77, Sweden

7. Academic EMS, Sjukhusbacken 10, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 171 77, Sweden

Abstract

Abstract Background Quality Indicator (QI) appraisal protocol is a novel methodology that combines multiple appraisal methods to comprehensively assess the ‘appropriateness’ of QIs for a particular healthcare setting. However, they remain inadequately explored compared to the single appraisal method approach. Objectives To describe and test a multi-method QI appraisal protocol versus the single method approach, against a series of QIs previously identified as potentially relevant to the prehospital emergency care setting. Methods An appraisal protocol was developed consisting of two categorical-based appraisal methods, combined with the qualitative analysis of the discussion generated during the consensus application of each method. The output of the protocol was assessed and compared with the application and output of each method. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) of each particular method was evaluated prior to group consensus rating. Variation in the number of non-valid QIs and the proportion of non-valid QIs identified between each method and the protocol were compared and assessed. Results There was mixed IRR of the individual methods. There was similarly low-to-moderate correlation of the results obtained between the particular methods (Spearman’s rank correlation = 0.42, P < 0.001). From a series of 104 QIs, 11 non-valid QIs were identified that were shared between the individual methods. A further 19 non-valid QIs were identified and not shared by each method, highlighting the benefits of a multi-method approach. The outcomes were additionally evident in the group discussion analysis, which in and of itself added further input that would not have otherwise been captured by the individual methods alone. Conclusion The utilization of a multi-method appraisal protocol offers multiple benefits, when compared to the single appraisal approach, and can provide the confidence that the outcomes of the appraisal will ensure a strong foundation on which the QI framework can be successfully implemented.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,General Medicine

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