TY - JOUR
T1 - Measuring quality of care in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage
T2 - Development of an explicit quality indicator set
AU - Kanwal, Fasiha
AU - Barkun, Alan
AU - Gralnek, Ian M.
AU - Asch, Steven M.
AU - Kuipers, Ernst J.
AU - Bardou, Marc
AU - Sung, Joseph
AU - Enns, Robert
AU - Agreus, Lars
AU - Armstrong, David
AU - Spiegel, Brennan M.R.
PY - 2010/8
Y1 - 2010/8
N2 - Objectives: With an increasing emphasis on quality in health care and recognition of inconsistencies in the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH), it is critical to establish a set of explicit quality indicators (QIs) in NVUGIH. Methods: We conducted a nine-member, multidisciplinary expert panel and followed modified Delphi methods to systematically identify a set of QIs for NVUGIH. The panel performed independent ratings of each candidate QI using a nine-point RAND appropriateness scale, then met in person and re-voted using an iterative process of discussion. The final set comprised QIs with a median RAND Appropriateness Score 7 and no disagreement among experts. Results: Among 116 candidate QIs, the panel rated 26 as valid measures of quality care. The selected QIs cover pre-endoscopy, endoscopy, and post-endoscopy care, including diagnosis, early resuscitation, risk stratification, endoscopic care, Helicobacter pylori management, and proton pump inhibitor therapy. Conclusions: We have developed an explicit set of evidence-based QIs in NVUGIH, providing physicians and institutions with a tool to identify processes amenable to quality improvement. This tool is intended to be applicable in all institutions providing care for NVUGIH patients.
AB - Objectives: With an increasing emphasis on quality in health care and recognition of inconsistencies in the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH), it is critical to establish a set of explicit quality indicators (QIs) in NVUGIH. Methods: We conducted a nine-member, multidisciplinary expert panel and followed modified Delphi methods to systematically identify a set of QIs for NVUGIH. The panel performed independent ratings of each candidate QI using a nine-point RAND appropriateness scale, then met in person and re-voted using an iterative process of discussion. The final set comprised QIs with a median RAND Appropriateness Score 7 and no disagreement among experts. Results: Among 116 candidate QIs, the panel rated 26 as valid measures of quality care. The selected QIs cover pre-endoscopy, endoscopy, and post-endoscopy care, including diagnosis, early resuscitation, risk stratification, endoscopic care, Helicobacter pylori management, and proton pump inhibitor therapy. Conclusions: We have developed an explicit set of evidence-based QIs in NVUGIH, providing physicians and institutions with a tool to identify processes amenable to quality improvement. This tool is intended to be applicable in all institutions providing care for NVUGIH patients.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955350742&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955350742&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/ajg.2010.180
DO - 10.1038/ajg.2010.180
M3 - Article
C2 - 20686458
AN - SCOPUS:77955350742
SN - 0002-9270
VL - 105
SP - 1710
EP - 1718
JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology
IS - 8
ER -