Testing Quality Indicators for UK Healthcare
Author Information
Author(s): Stephen M. Campbell, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Kerin Hannon, Martyn Burke, Annette Barber, Helen E. Lester
Primary Institution: University of Manchester
Hypothesis
Can a structured testing protocol improve the development and implementation of quality indicators in the UK healthcare system?
Conclusion
The indicator testing protocol effectively identifies implementation issues and unintended consequences, ensuring better quality indicators for healthcare.
Supporting Evidence
- The testing protocol identified implementation issues that could be addressed before national rollout.
- Twelve out of thirteen indicators passed the testing protocol.
- The palliative care indicator was rejected due to concerns about patient harm.
- Pilot testing provided valuable insights into the acceptability and feasibility of indicators.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis was only feasible for myocardial infarction indicators.
Takeaway
This study shows that testing new healthcare indicators helps find problems before they are used everywhere, making sure they work well and don't harm patients.
Methodology
The study used a multi-step indicator testing protocol involving expert ratings, data extraction from medical records, workload diaries, cost-effectiveness modeling, and interviews with practice staff.
Potential Biases
Potential biases may arise from the selection of practices and the subjective nature of interviews.
Limitations
The pilot involved a limited number of practices and a short testing period, which may not capture all implementation issues.
Participant Demographics
The study included staff from 24 family practices, including doctors, nurses, and administrative staff.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website