*Department of Community Health Sciences, W21C Research and Innovation Centre, Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary †Departments of Critical Care Medicine, Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary and Alberta Health Services.
Ann Surg. 2014 Jan;259(1):186-92. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828df98e.
To develop and evaluate evidence-informed quality indicators of adult injury care.
Injury is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, but there is a lack of consensus regarding how to evaluate injury care.
Using a modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 19 injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised quality indicators identified from a systematic review of the literature and international audit of trauma center quality improvement practices. The quality indicators developed by the panel were sent to 133 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation.
A total of 84 quality indicators were rated and revised by the expert panel over 4 rounds of review producing 31 quality indicators of structure (n=5), process (n=21), and outcome (n=5), designed to assess the safety (n=8), effectiveness (n=17), efficiency (n=6), timeliness (n=16), equity (n=2), and patient-centeredness (n=1) of injury care spanning prehospital (n=8), hospital (n=19), and posthospital (n=2) care and secondary injury prevention (n=1). A total of 101 trauma centers (76% response rate) rated the indicators (1=strong disagreement, 9=strong agreement) as targeting important health improvements (median score 9, interquartile range [IQR] 8-9), easy to interpret (median score 8, IQR 8-9), easy to implement (median score 8, IQR 7-8), and globally good indicators (median score 8, IQR 8-9).
Thirty-one evidence-informed quality indicators of adult injury care were developed, shown to have content validity, and can be used as performance measures to guide injury care quality improvement practices.
制定和评估成人创伤护理的循证质量指标。
创伤是发病率和死亡率的主要原因,但如何评估创伤护理尚未达成共识。
采用 RAND/UCLA 适宜性方法的改良版,由 19 名创伤和质量护理专家组成的小组对从文献系统评价和国际创伤中心质量改进实践审计中确定的质量指标进行了连续评估和修订。小组制定的质量指标被发送到美国、加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰的 133 家经核实的创伤中心进行评估。
共有 84 项质量指标经过专家小组 4 轮审查和修订,产生了 31 项结构(n=5)、过程(n=21)和结果(n=5)质量指标,旨在评估创伤护理的安全性(n=8)、有效性(n=17)、效率(n=6)、及时性(n=16)、公平性(n=2)和以患者为中心(n=1),涵盖了院前(n=8)、医院(n=19)和院后(n=2)护理以及继发性损伤预防(n=1)。共有 101 家创伤中心(76%的回应率)对这些指标(1=强烈不同意,9=强烈同意)进行了评分,认为这些指标针对重要的健康改善(中位数 9 分,四分位距[IQR] 8-9 分)、易于解释(中位数 8 分,IQR 8-9 分)、易于实施(中位数 8 分,IQR 7-8 分),并且总体上是良好的指标(中位数 8 分,IQR 8-9 分)。
制定了 31 项成人创伤护理的循证质量指标,这些指标具有内容有效性,可作为绩效衡量标准,指导创伤护理质量改进实践。