4.0 Article

A Quality Indicator Set for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

期刊

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/art.24356

关键词

-

资金

  1. Arthritis Foundation
  2. American College of Rheumatology Research and Education Foundation
  3. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [P60-AR-053308]
  4. University of California, San Francisco

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To systematically develop a quality indicator (QI) set for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods. We used a validated process that combined available scientific evidence and expert consensus to develop a QI set for SLE. We extracted 20 candidate indicators from a systematic literature review of clinical practice guidelines pertaining to SLE. An advisory panel revised and augmented these candidate indicators and, through 2 rounds of voting, arrived at 25 QIs. These QIs advanced to the next phase of the project, in which we employed a modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. A systematic review of the literature was performed for each QI, linking the proposed process of care to potential improved health outcomes. After reviewing this scientific evidence, a second interdisciplinary expert panel convened to discuss the evidence and provide final ratings on the validity and feasibility of each QI. Results. The final expert panel rated 20 QIs as both valid and feasible. Areas covered included diagnosis, general preventive strategies (e.g., vaccinations, sun avoidance counseling, and screening for cardiovascular disease), osteoporosis prevention and treatment, drug toxicity monitoring, renal disease, and reproductive health. Conclusion. We employed a rigorous multistep approach with systematic literature reviews and 2 expert panels to develop QIs for SLE. This new set of indicators provides an opportunity to assess health care quality in patients with SLE and represents an initial step toward the important goal of improving care in this patient population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据