4.5 Article

Quality Indicators for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Development of Process and Outcome Measures

Journal

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 662-668

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/mib.0b013e31828278a2

Keywords

inflammatory bowel disease; Crohn's disease; ulcerative colitis; quality; quality indicators; quality of care; quality measures

Funding

  1. Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
  2. Pfizer
  3. Abbott Laboratories
  4. Janssen Pharmaceuticals
  5. Salix
  6. UCB
  7. Warner-Chilcott
  8. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [K23DK078678, DK088957]
  9. Shire
  10. Centocor
  11. Takeda
  12. Janssen
  13. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois
  14. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Paris
  15. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, France
  16. Centocor, Malvern, PA
  17. Falk Pharma, Freiburg, Germany
  18. Given Imaging, Hamburg, Germany
  19. Merck Co., Inc., NJ
  20. Schering Plough Corporation, Kenilworth, NJ
  21. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Wayne, PA
  22. UCB Pharma
  23. Abbott/Abvie
  24. Prometheus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Variation in adherence to management guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suggests variable quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) can be developed to measure the structure, processes, and outcomes of health care delivery. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop a set of process and outcome QIs to define quality of care for IBD. Methods: Guidelines and position papers for IBD published from 2006 to 2011 were reviewed for potential QIs, which were rated by a multidisciplinary panel. Potential process and outcome QIs were discussed at 3 moderated in-person meetings, with pre-meeting and post-meeting confidential electronic voting. Panelists rated the validity and feasibility of QIs on a 1 through 9 scale; disagreement was assessed using a validated index. QIs rated above 8 were selected for the final set. Results: More than 500 potential process QIs were extracted from guidelines. Following ratings and discussion by the first panel, 35 process QIs were selected for literature review. After the second panel, 10 process QIs were included in the final set. Candidate outcome QIs were then derived from physician, nurse, and patient input and ratings, in addition to outcomes associated with candidate process QIs. None of the top QIs exhibited disagreement. Conclusions: A set of QIs for IBD was developed with expert interpretation of the literature and multidisciplinary input. Outcome QIs focused largely on remission and quality of life, whereas process QIs were aimed at therapeutic optimization and patient safety. Evaluation of these QIs in clinical practice is needed to assess the correlation of performance on process QIs with performance on outcome QIs. (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013;19:662-668)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available