Selection of quality indicators for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark, informed by a modified-Delphi process

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Hans Kirkegaard²  Lisa Kurland³  Christian Fynbo Christiansen⁵  Annette Odby¹  Julie Mackenhauer²  Andreas Halgreen Eiset²  Michael Moesmann Madsen⁴ 

[1] The Danish Clinical Registers, Aarhus, Denmark;Research Center for Emergency Medicine, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark;Department of EM, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden;Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

关键词: Quality indicator;    Quality measure;    Time-critical condition;    Performance measure;    Performance indicator;    Key indicator;    Emergency medicine;    Emergency department;    ED;    Delphi technique;    Delphi;    Emergency in-hospital care;   

Others  :  1235802
DOI  :  10.1186/s13049-016-0203-x

 received in 2015-10-09, accepted in 2016-01-25,  发布年份 2016

【 摘 要 】

Background

In 2013, Danish policy-makers on a nationwide level decided to set up a national quality of care database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark including the selection of quality indicators. The aim of the study was to describe the Delphi process that contributed to the selection of quality indicators for a new national database of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark.

Methods

The process comprised a literature review followed by a modified-Delphi survey process, involving a panel of 54 experts (senior clinicians, researchers and administrators from the emergency area and collaborating specialties). Based on the literature review, we identified 43 potential indicators, of which eight were time-critical conditions. We then consulted the Expert panel in two consecutive rounds. The Expert panel was asked to what extent each indicator would be a good measure of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. In each round, the Expert panel participants scored each indicator on a Likert scale ranging from one (=disagree completely) through to six (=agree completely). Consensus for a quality indicator was reached if the median was greater than or equal to five (=agree). The Delphi process was followed by final selection by the steering group for the new database.

Results

Following round two of the Expert panel, consensus was reached on 32 quality indicators, including three time-critical conditions. Subsequently, the database steering group chose a set of nine quality indicators for the initial version of the national database for hospital-based emergency care.

Conclusions

The two-round modified Delphi process contributed to the selection of an initial set of nine quality indicators for a new a national database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. Final selection was made by the database steering group informed by the Delphi process.

【 授权许可】

   
2016 Madsen et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Holliman CJ, Mulligan TM, Suter RE, Cameron P, Wallis L, Anderson PD et al.. The efficacy and value of emergency medicine: a supportive literature review. Int J Emerg Med. 2011; 4:44. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Scott KW, Jha AK. Putting quality on the global health agenda. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(1):3-5.
• [3]Styrket Akutberedskab. Planlægningsgrundlag for det regionale sundhedsvæsen. 2007.
• [4]Mackenhauer J, Møller C, Fjældstad A, Østervig R, Kole AA, Folkestad L et al.. Speciallægen er ikke i front på de danske akutafdelinger. Ugeskr Laeger. 2013; 175(8):491-4.
• [5]Chisholm G, Mackenhauer J. [Considerable regional differences in visitation and initial handling of acute cardiac patients in Denmark.]. Ugeskr Laeger 2014;176(8).
• [6]Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988; 260(12):1743-8.
• [7]Richardson WC, Berwick DM, Bisgard JC, Bristow LR, Buck CR, Cassel CK, et. al. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C. [Great Britain]: National Academy Press; 2001.
• [8]Helmer O. Analysis of the future: The Delphi method. DTIC Document. 1967.
• [9]Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011; 6(6):e20476.
• [10]Schull M, Guttmann A, Leaver C, Vermeulen M, Hatcher C, Rowe B et al.. Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidence-based quality of care indicators. CJEM. 2011; 13(5):300.
• [11]Coleman P, Nicholl J. Consensus methods to identify a set of potential performance indicators for systems of emergency and urgent care. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010; 15(suppl 2):12-8.
• [12]Wakai A, O’Sullivan R, Staunton P, Walsh C, Hickey F, Plunkett PK. Development of key performance indicators for emergency departments in Ireland using an electronic modified-Delphi consensus approach. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013; 20(2):109-14.
• [13]Sørup CM, Jacobsen P, Forberg JL. Evaluation of emergency department performance - a systematic review on recommended performance and quality-in-care measures. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013; 21:62. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Madsen M, Kiuru S, Castren M, Kurland L. The level of evidence for emergency department performance indicators: systematic review. Eur J Emerg Med. 2015; 22:298.
• [15]Wallis L. Identification of performance indicators for emergency centres in South Africa: Results of a Delphi study. Int J Emerg Men. 2010; 3(4):341-9.
• [16]Quality indicators. [http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov]. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
• [17]Brøcker A, Christensen IE, Bro LL. Kvalitet og mål i akutmodtagelser: Det Nationale Institut for Kommuners og Regioners Analyse og Forskning. 2013.
• [18]Databasen for Akutte Hospitalskontakter. [http://www.kcks-vest.dk/kliniske-kvalitetsdatabaser/databasen-for-akutte-hospitalskontakter/]. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
• [19]Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31.
• [20]Rammebeskrivelse for anvendelse af kvalitetsdata fra de landsdækkende kliniske kvalitetsdatabaser. Version 1.1. 2012.