3.8 Review

Identification of health outcome indicators in Primary Care. A review of systematic reviews

Journal

REVISTA DE CALIDAD ASISTENCIAL
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 278-288

Publisher

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.cali.2017.08.001

Keywords

Performance indicators; Health status indicators; Quality indicators; Review; Review of reviews

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Outcome measures are being widely used by health services to assess the quality of health care. It is important to have a battery of useful performance indicators with high validity and feasibility. Thus, the objective of this study is to perform a review of reviews in order to identify outcome indicators for use in Primary Care. Methodology: A review of systematic reviews (umbrella review) was carried out. The following databases were consulted: MedLine, EMBASE, and CINAHL, using descriptors and free terms, limiting searches to documents published in English or Spanish. In addition, a search was made for free terms in different web pages. Those reviews that offered indicators that could be used in the Primary Care environment were included. Results: This review included a total of 5 reviews on performance indicators in Primary Care, which consisted of indicators in the following areas or clinical care processes: in osteoarthritis, chronicity, childhood asthma, clinical effectiveness, and prescription safety indicators. A total of 69 performance indicators were identified, with the percentage of performance indicators ranging from 0% to 92.8%. None of the reviews identified performed an analysis of the measurement control (feasibility or sensitivity to change of indicators). Conclusions: This paper offers a set of 69 performance indicators that have been identified and subsequently validated and prioritised by a panel of experts. (C) 2017 SECA. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available