医疗质量指标的医院间差异:系统性综述。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Margrietha van der Linde, Nèwel Salet, Nikki van Leeuwen, Hester F Lingsma, Frank Eijkenaar
{"title":"医疗质量指标的医院间差异:系统性综述。","authors":"Margrietha van der Linde, Nèwel Salet, Nikki van Leeuwen, Hester F Lingsma, Frank Eijkenaar","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efforts to mitigate unwarranted variation in the quality of care require insight into the 'level' (eg, patient, physician, ward, hospital) at which observed variation exists. This systematic literature review aims to synthesise the results of studies that quantify the extent to which hospitals contribute to variation in quality indicator scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 2010 to November 2023. We included studies that reported a measure of between-hospital variation in quality indicator scores relative to total variation, typically expressed as a variance partition coefficient (VPC). The results were analysed by disease category and quality indicator type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 8373 studies were reviewed, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria. Casemix adjusted variation was studied for multiple disease categories using 144 indicators, divided over 5 types: intermediate clinical outcomes (n=81), final clinical outcomes (n=35), processes (n=10), patient-reported experiences (n=15) and patient-reported outcomes (n=3). In addition to an analysis of between-hospital variation, eight studies also reported physician-level variation (n=54 estimates). In general, variation that could be attributed to hospitals was limited (median VPC=3%, IQR=1%-9%). Between-hospital variation was highest for process indicators (17.4%, 10.8%-33.5%) and lowest for final clinical outcomes (1.4%, 0.6%-4.2%) and patient-reported outcomes (1.0%, 0.9%-1.5%). No clear pattern could be identified in the degree of between-hospital variation by disease category. Furthermore, the studies exhibited limited attention to the reliability of observed differences in indicator scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hospital-level variation in quality indicator scores is generally small relative to residual variation. However, meaningful variation between hospitals does exist for multiple indicators, especially for care processes which can be directly influenced by hospital policy. Quality improvement strategies are likely to generate more impact if preceded by level-specific and indicator-specific analyses of variation, and when absolute variation is also considered.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42022315850.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between-hospital variation in indicators of quality of care: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Margrietha van der Linde, Nèwel Salet, Nikki van Leeuwen, Hester F Lingsma, Frank Eijkenaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efforts to mitigate unwarranted variation in the quality of care require insight into the 'level' (eg, patient, physician, ward, hospital) at which observed variation exists. This systematic literature review aims to synthesise the results of studies that quantify the extent to which hospitals contribute to variation in quality indicator scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 2010 to November 2023. We included studies that reported a measure of between-hospital variation in quality indicator scores relative to total variation, typically expressed as a variance partition coefficient (VPC). The results were analysed by disease category and quality indicator type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 8373 studies were reviewed, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria. Casemix adjusted variation was studied for multiple disease categories using 144 indicators, divided over 5 types: intermediate clinical outcomes (n=81), final clinical outcomes (n=35), processes (n=10), patient-reported experiences (n=15) and patient-reported outcomes (n=3). In addition to an analysis of between-hospital variation, eight studies also reported physician-level variation (n=54 estimates). In general, variation that could be attributed to hospitals was limited (median VPC=3%, IQR=1%-9%). Between-hospital variation was highest for process indicators (17.4%, 10.8%-33.5%) and lowest for final clinical outcomes (1.4%, 0.6%-4.2%) and patient-reported outcomes (1.0%, 0.9%-1.5%). No clear pattern could be identified in the degree of between-hospital variation by disease category. Furthermore, the studies exhibited limited attention to the reliability of observed differences in indicator scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hospital-level variation in quality indicator scores is generally small relative to residual variation. However, meaningful variation between hospitals does exist for multiple indicators, especially for care processes which can be directly influenced by hospital policy. Quality improvement strategies are likely to generate more impact if preceded by level-specific and indicator-specific analyses of variation, and when absolute variation is also considered.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42022315850.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016726\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016726","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

摘要

背景:为减少医疗质量中不必要的差异,需要深入了解观察到的差异存在于哪个 "层面"(如患者、医生、病房、医院)。本系统性文献综述旨在综合量化医院在多大程度上导致了质量指标评分差异的研究结果:方法:系统检索了 2010 年至 2023 年 11 月期间的 Embase、Medline、Web of Science、Cochrane 和 Google Scholar。我们纳入了那些报告了医院间质量指标评分差异相对于总差异的测量值的研究,该测量值通常用方差分配系数(VPC)表示。研究结果按疾病类别和质量指标类型进行分析:结果:共审查了 8373 项研究,其中 44 项符合纳入标准。使用144个指标对多种疾病类别的病例混合调整变异进行了研究,这些指标分为5种类型:中间临床结果(81个)、最终临床结果(35个)、过程(10个)、患者报告的经历(15个)和患者报告的结果(3个)。除了对医院间差异进行分析外,8 项研究还报告了医生层面的差异(估计值为 54)。总体而言,可归因于医院的差异是有限的(VPC 中位数=3%,IQR=1%-9%)。医院间差异最大的是流程指标(17.4%,10.8%-33.5%),最小的是最终临床结果(1.4%,0.6%-4.2%)和患者报告结果(1.0%,0.9%-1.5%)。按疾病类别划分的医院间差异程度没有明确的模式。此外,这些研究对观察到的指标评分差异的可靠性关注有限:结论:相对于残差而言,医院层面的质量指标评分差异通常较小。然而,在多个指标上,医院之间确实存在有意义的差异,尤其是在可受医院政策直接影响的护理流程方面。如果在制定质量改进策略之前,先对特定级别和特定指标的差异进行分析,并考虑绝对差异,那么这些策略可能会产生更大的影响:CRD42022315850。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Between-hospital variation in indicators of quality of care: a systematic review.

Background: Efforts to mitigate unwarranted variation in the quality of care require insight into the 'level' (eg, patient, physician, ward, hospital) at which observed variation exists. This systematic literature review aims to synthesise the results of studies that quantify the extent to which hospitals contribute to variation in quality indicator scores.

Methods: Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 2010 to November 2023. We included studies that reported a measure of between-hospital variation in quality indicator scores relative to total variation, typically expressed as a variance partition coefficient (VPC). The results were analysed by disease category and quality indicator type.

Results: In total, 8373 studies were reviewed, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria. Casemix adjusted variation was studied for multiple disease categories using 144 indicators, divided over 5 types: intermediate clinical outcomes (n=81), final clinical outcomes (n=35), processes (n=10), patient-reported experiences (n=15) and patient-reported outcomes (n=3). In addition to an analysis of between-hospital variation, eight studies also reported physician-level variation (n=54 estimates). In general, variation that could be attributed to hospitals was limited (median VPC=3%, IQR=1%-9%). Between-hospital variation was highest for process indicators (17.4%, 10.8%-33.5%) and lowest for final clinical outcomes (1.4%, 0.6%-4.2%) and patient-reported outcomes (1.0%, 0.9%-1.5%). No clear pattern could be identified in the degree of between-hospital variation by disease category. Furthermore, the studies exhibited limited attention to the reliability of observed differences in indicator scores.

Conclusion: Hospital-level variation in quality indicator scores is generally small relative to residual variation. However, meaningful variation between hospitals does exist for multiple indicators, especially for care processes which can be directly influenced by hospital policy. Quality improvement strategies are likely to generate more impact if preceded by level-specific and indicator-specific analyses of variation, and when absolute variation is also considered.

Prospero registration number: CRD42022315850.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信