Petrosyan Yelena, Sahakyan Yeva, Barnsley Jan M, Kuluski Kerry, Liu Barbara, Wodchis Walter P
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fam Pract. 2018 Mar 27;35(2):151-159. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmx090.
Despite the high prevalence of osteoarthritis and the prominence of primary care in managing this condition, there is no systematic summary of quality indicators applicable for osteoarthritis care in primary care settings.
This systematic review aimed to identify evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings.
Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (i) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (ii) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Applicable quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.
The search revealed 4526 studies, of which 32 studies were reviewed in detail and 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and use of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 20 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlapped conceptually or in content.
The process of developing quality indicators was methodologically suboptimal in most cases. There is a need to develop specific process, structure and outcome measures for adults with osteoarthritis using appropriate methodology.
尽管骨关节炎患病率很高,且初级保健在管理该疾病方面具有重要地位,但尚无适用于初级保健机构中骨关节炎护理的质量指标的系统总结。
本系统评价旨在确定基于证据的质量指标,以监测、评估和改善初级保健机构中成年骨关节炎患者的护理质量。
检索了2000年至2015年的Ovid MEDLINE和Ovid EMBASE数据库以及灰色文献,包括相关组织网站。两名评审员独立选择研究,条件为:(i)研究方法将系统文献检索与专家小组对质量指标的评估相结合;(ii)质量指标适用于评估初级保健机构中成年骨关节炎患者的护理。使用研究与评估指标评估工具(AIRE)对纳入研究进行评价。采用叙述性综合方法将各主题内的指标进行合并。适用的质量指标根据唐纳贝迪安的“结构-过程-结果”框架进行分类。
检索共发现4526项研究,其中32项研究进行了详细评审,4项研究符合纳入标准。根据AIRE领域,所有研究在目的和利益相关者参与方面都很明确,但在实践中指标的正式认可和使用很少被描述。从纳入研究中总共确定了20项质量指标;其中许多指标在概念上或内容上重叠。
在大多数情况下,制定质量指标的过程在方法上并不理想。需要使用适当的方法为成年骨关节炎患者制定具体的过程、结构和结果指标。