| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
1 School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
2 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK
3 RAND Health, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA
4 Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1736, USA
5 Department of Medicine for the Elderly, Addenbrooke’s NHS Trust, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK
Correspondence to:
Dr N Steel
School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK; n.steel{at}uea.ac.uk
Background: Measurement of the quality of health care is essential for quality improvement, and patients are an underused source of data about quality of care. We describe the adaptation of a set of USA quality indicators for use in patient interview surveys in England, to measure the extent to which older patients receive a broad range of effective healthcare interventions in both primary and secondary care.
Method: One hundred and nineteen quality indicators covering 16 clinical areas, based on a set of indicators for the care of vulnerable elderly patients in the USA, were reviewed by a panel of 10 clinical experts in England. A modified version of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used and panel members were supplied with literature reviews summarising the evidence base for each quality indicator. The indicators were sent for comment before the panel meeting to UK charitable organisations for older people.
Results: The panel rated 102 of the 119 indicators (86%) as valid for use in England; 17 (14%) were rejected as invalid. All 58 indicators about treatment or continuity and follow up were rated as valid compared with just over half (13 of 24) of the indicators about screening.
Conclusions: These 102 indicators are suitable for use in patient interview surveys, including the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). The systematic measurement of quality of care at the population level and identification of gaps in quality is essential for quality improvement. There is potential for transfer of quality indicators between countries, at least for the health care of older people.
Keywords: quality of care; quality indicators; health surveys; geriatric medicine
Related Articles
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2004 13: 241.
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2004 13: 248-249.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. Guthrie Measuring the quality of healthcare systems using composites BMJ, August 13, 2008; 337(aug13_2): a639 - a639. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Steel, M. Bachmann, S. Maisey, P. Shekelle, E. Breeze, M. Marmot, and D. Melzer Self reported receipt of care consistent with 32 quality indicators: national population survey of adults aged 50 or more in England BMJ, August 13, 2008; 337(aug13_2): a957 - a957. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E van der Ploeg, M F I A Depla, P Shekelle, H Rigter, and J P Mackenbach Developing quality indicators for general practice care for vulnerable elders; transfer from US to The Netherlands Qual. Saf. Health Care, August 1, 2008; 17(4): 291 - 295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Payot, J. Latour, F. Massoud, and M.-J. Kergoat Validation d'indicateurs de la prise en charge des atteintes des fonctions cognitives dans les unites d'evaluation geriatrique Can Fam Physician, November 1, 2007; 53(11): 1944 - 1952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Clarke and M Rao Developing quality indicators to assess quality of care Qual. Saf. Health Care, August 1, 2004; 13(4): 248 - 249. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
