L Fierens, C Liefferinckx, J Sabino, E de Dycker, V Wambacq, K Vanhaecht, F Rademakers, P Bossuyt, F Baert, D Baert, M Ferrante
{"title":"P335 比利时炎症性肠病质量指标集的开发与验证","authors":"L Fierens, C Liefferinckx, J Sabino, E de Dycker, V Wambacq, K Vanhaecht, F Rademakers, P Bossuyt, F Baert, D Baert, M Ferrante","doi":"10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Quality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality, categorised as structure (to assess the care setting), process (to assess high-quality care actions by healthcare professionals) or outcome indicators (results of actions undertaken by healthcare professionals). Several quality indicator sets have been developed to standardise, measure and optimise IBD care. Our aim was to develop and validate a set to assess IBD care in Belgium and to select a subset of indicators with room for improvement that can be used to implement and improve care in clinical practice. Methods The importance of 221 quality indicators (49 structure, 135 process and 37 outcome) identified through literature was scored on a 10-point Likert scale in a two-round modified Delphi exercise by IBD experts. In a third round, the experts indicated and ranked their top 10 indicators with most room for improvement benefitting the patient in the Belgian healthcare system to agree on an improvement subset. In parallel, patient perspectives were collected through two linguistic patient focus groups, one in Flemish (6 participants) and one in French (4 participants). A final consensus meeting was organised to discuss 1) the patient perspectives gained through the focus groups, 2) the results of two Delphi scoring rounds and 3) the results of the additional ranking round. Indicators scoring ≥7 by ≥80% of the participants during the second scoring round, or based on agreement during the consensus meeting, were included in the final set. Results Thirty-two experts (11 IBD nurses and 21 clinicians including 2 paediatricians) participated in all three voting rounds, of which 19 also participated in the consensus meeting (6 IBD nurses and 13 IBD clinicians including 2 IBD paediatricians). In total, 199 quality indicators were agreed upon to assess IBD care in Belgium (41 structure, 123 process and 35 outcome). Eighteen (3 structure, 14 process and 1 outcome; Table) were retained in the improvement subset, related to patient characteristics, endoscopy guidelines, infection prevention, steroid use, the IBD care team, services provided in the IBD clinic, the documentation of patient characteristics, the care pathway and the monitoring of disease activity. The decision to include the latter five themes was driven by the importance to patients, which was evident from the patient focus groups. Conclusion An evidence and consensus based set of quality indicators was developed and validated - including an improvement subset - allowing Belgian IBD centres to evaluate quality of provided care, set up quality improvement projects and potentially launch a benchmarking study.","PeriodicalId":15453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Crohn's and Colitis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"P335 Development and validation of a Belgian set of quality indicators for inflammatory bowel diseases\",\"authors\":\"L Fierens, C Liefferinckx, J Sabino, E de Dycker, V Wambacq, K Vanhaecht, F Rademakers, P Bossuyt, F Baert, D Baert, M Ferrante\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Quality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality, categorised as structure (to assess the care setting), process (to assess high-quality care actions by healthcare professionals) or outcome indicators (results of actions undertaken by healthcare professionals). Several quality indicator sets have been developed to standardise, measure and optimise IBD care. Our aim was to develop and validate a set to assess IBD care in Belgium and to select a subset of indicators with room for improvement that can be used to implement and improve care in clinical practice. Methods The importance of 221 quality indicators (49 structure, 135 process and 37 outcome) identified through literature was scored on a 10-point Likert scale in a two-round modified Delphi exercise by IBD experts. In a third round, the experts indicated and ranked their top 10 indicators with most room for improvement benefitting the patient in the Belgian healthcare system to agree on an improvement subset. In parallel, patient perspectives were collected through two linguistic patient focus groups, one in Flemish (6 participants) and one in French (4 participants). A final consensus meeting was organised to discuss 1) the patient perspectives gained through the focus groups, 2) the results of two Delphi scoring rounds and 3) the results of the additional ranking round. Indicators scoring ≥7 by ≥80% of the participants during the second scoring round, or based on agreement during the consensus meeting, were included in the final set. Results Thirty-two experts (11 IBD nurses and 21 clinicians including 2 paediatricians) participated in all three voting rounds, of which 19 also participated in the consensus meeting (6 IBD nurses and 13 IBD clinicians including 2 IBD paediatricians). In total, 199 quality indicators were agreed upon to assess IBD care in Belgium (41 structure, 123 process and 35 outcome). Eighteen (3 structure, 14 process and 1 outcome; Table) were retained in the improvement subset, related to patient characteristics, endoscopy guidelines, infection prevention, steroid use, the IBD care team, services provided in the IBD clinic, the documentation of patient characteristics, the care pathway and the monitoring of disease activity. The decision to include the latter five themes was driven by the importance to patients, which was evident from the patient focus groups. Conclusion An evidence and consensus based set of quality indicators was developed and validated - including an improvement subset - allowing Belgian IBD centres to evaluate quality of provided care, set up quality improvement projects and potentially launch a benchmarking study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15453,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Crohn's and Colitis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Crohn's and Colitis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0465\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Crohn's and Colitis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
P335 Development and validation of a Belgian set of quality indicators for inflammatory bowel diseases
Background Quality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality, categorised as structure (to assess the care setting), process (to assess high-quality care actions by healthcare professionals) or outcome indicators (results of actions undertaken by healthcare professionals). Several quality indicator sets have been developed to standardise, measure and optimise IBD care. Our aim was to develop and validate a set to assess IBD care in Belgium and to select a subset of indicators with room for improvement that can be used to implement and improve care in clinical practice. Methods The importance of 221 quality indicators (49 structure, 135 process and 37 outcome) identified through literature was scored on a 10-point Likert scale in a two-round modified Delphi exercise by IBD experts. In a third round, the experts indicated and ranked their top 10 indicators with most room for improvement benefitting the patient in the Belgian healthcare system to agree on an improvement subset. In parallel, patient perspectives were collected through two linguistic patient focus groups, one in Flemish (6 participants) and one in French (4 participants). A final consensus meeting was organised to discuss 1) the patient perspectives gained through the focus groups, 2) the results of two Delphi scoring rounds and 3) the results of the additional ranking round. Indicators scoring ≥7 by ≥80% of the participants during the second scoring round, or based on agreement during the consensus meeting, were included in the final set. Results Thirty-two experts (11 IBD nurses and 21 clinicians including 2 paediatricians) participated in all three voting rounds, of which 19 also participated in the consensus meeting (6 IBD nurses and 13 IBD clinicians including 2 IBD paediatricians). In total, 199 quality indicators were agreed upon to assess IBD care in Belgium (41 structure, 123 process and 35 outcome). Eighteen (3 structure, 14 process and 1 outcome; Table) were retained in the improvement subset, related to patient characteristics, endoscopy guidelines, infection prevention, steroid use, the IBD care team, services provided in the IBD clinic, the documentation of patient characteristics, the care pathway and the monitoring of disease activity. The decision to include the latter five themes was driven by the importance to patients, which was evident from the patient focus groups. Conclusion An evidence and consensus based set of quality indicators was developed and validated - including an improvement subset - allowing Belgian IBD centres to evaluate quality of provided care, set up quality improvement projects and potentially launch a benchmarking study.