Welcome to the jungle: collection and evaluation of quality indicators with the QUALICATOR instrument.

IF 6.8 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jonas Backes, Justus Vogel, Alexander Geissler, Michael M Havranek, Sarah P Schladerer, David Ehlig
{"title":"Welcome to the jungle: collection and evaluation of quality indicators with the QUALICATOR instrument.","authors":"Jonas Backes, Justus Vogel, Alexander Geissler, Michael M Havranek, Sarah P Schladerer, David Ehlig","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2026-020265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rapid growth in quality indicators (QIs) has increased complexity in selecting those that are effective for monitoring provider quality and patient outcomes. Existing selection methodologies are often insufficiently transparent or standardised and influenced by subjective opinions. To develop an instrument for evidence-based collection and evaluation of QIs that are suitable for quality monitoring, and which can be applied to various healthcare areas (HCAs; defined by care setting). The instrument was developed with HCA-specific experts, who provided feedback on its components and piloted its use in the Swiss context. We conducted a literature search with snowballing to identify prioritisation criteria and weighted these using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). We developed a template to facilitate data collection and the QI evaluation. The final QUALICATOR instrument consists of five steps: (1) definition of search scope; (2) utilisation of 12 prioritisation criteria across four dimensions (relevance, scientific soundness, usability, feasibility); (3) application of a data collection template objectifying the prioritisation criteria; (4) preselection via knockout criteria and (5) final prioritisation via weighting multicriteria decision analysis. Final criteria weights derived via the AHP varied substantially across HCAs (eg, relevance: 19.16%-57.10%; scientific soundness: 5.50%-39.50%; usability: 13.17%-33.75%; feasibility: 11.78%-45.57%), reflecting HCA-specific priorities. A web-based prototype is available to support a user-friendly application. This QUALICATOR instrument provides a transparent, scalable approach to navigate through a growing body of QIs with further validation needed. It provides a methodological framework and proof of concept, rather than a ready-to-use solution. It shows policymakers, providers and payers a path to make informed decisions about which QIs to prioritise, monitor, invest in and act on.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":"565-575"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13479300/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2026-020265","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rapid growth in quality indicators (QIs) has increased complexity in selecting those that are effective for monitoring provider quality and patient outcomes. Existing selection methodologies are often insufficiently transparent or standardised and influenced by subjective opinions. To develop an instrument for evidence-based collection and evaluation of QIs that are suitable for quality monitoring, and which can be applied to various healthcare areas (HCAs; defined by care setting). The instrument was developed with HCA-specific experts, who provided feedback on its components and piloted its use in the Swiss context. We conducted a literature search with snowballing to identify prioritisation criteria and weighted these using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). We developed a template to facilitate data collection and the QI evaluation. The final QUALICATOR instrument consists of five steps: (1) definition of search scope; (2) utilisation of 12 prioritisation criteria across four dimensions (relevance, scientific soundness, usability, feasibility); (3) application of a data collection template objectifying the prioritisation criteria; (4) preselection via knockout criteria and (5) final prioritisation via weighting multicriteria decision analysis. Final criteria weights derived via the AHP varied substantially across HCAs (eg, relevance: 19.16%-57.10%; scientific soundness: 5.50%-39.50%; usability: 13.17%-33.75%; feasibility: 11.78%-45.57%), reflecting HCA-specific priorities. A web-based prototype is available to support a user-friendly application. This QUALICATOR instrument provides a transparent, scalable approach to navigate through a growing body of QIs with further validation needed. It provides a methodological framework and proof of concept, rather than a ready-to-use solution. It shows policymakers, providers and payers a path to make informed decisions about which QIs to prioritise, monitor, invest in and act on.

欢迎来到丛林:使用QUALICATOR仪器收集和评估质量指标。
质量指标(QIs)的快速增长增加了选择那些有效监测提供者质量和患者结果的复杂性。现有的选择方法往往不够透明或标准化,并受到主观意见的影响。开发一种工具,用于以证据为基础收集和评估适合于质量监测的质量指标,并可应用于各种医疗保健领域(hca;由护理环境定义)。该仪器是由专门针对hca的专家开发的,他们对其组件提供了反馈,并在瑞士进行了试用。我们用滚雪球法进行了文献检索,以确定优先级标准,并使用层次分析法(AHP)对这些标准进行加权。我们开发了一个模板,以方便数据收集和QI评估。最终的qualiator工具包括五个步骤:(1)定义搜索范围;(2)在四个维度(相关性、科学合理性、可用性、可行性)中使用12个优先级标准;(3)应用数据收集模板客观化优先级标准;(4)通过淘汰标准进行预选;(5)通过加权多标准决策分析确定最终优先级。通过AHP得出的最终标准权重在不同hca之间差异很大(例如,相关性:19.16%-57.10%;科学合理性:5.50%-39.50%;可用性:13.17%-33.75%;可行性:11.78%-45.57%),反映了hca特定的优先级。基于web的原型可用于支持用户友好的应用程序。这种qualiator仪器提供了一种透明的、可扩展的方法来导航不断增长的QIs,需要进一步的验证。它提供了一个方法框架和概念证明,而不是一个现成的解决方案。它为政策制定者、提供者和支付方提供了一条做出明智决策的途径,以确定哪些质量指标值得优先考虑、监测、投资和采取行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书