Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidencebased quality of care indicators

  • Michael J. Schull (a1) (a2) (a3), Astrid Guttmann (a1) (a3) (a4) (a5), Chad A. Leaver (a1), Marian Vermeulen (a1), Caroline M. Hatcher (a6), Brian H. Rowe (a7), Merrick Zwarenstein (a1) (a3) (a8) and Geoffrey M. Anderson (a1) (a3)...

Abstract:

Background:

The evaluation of emergency department (ED) quality of care is hampered by the absence of consensus on appropriate measures. We sought to develop a consensus on a prioritized and parsimonious set of evidence-based quality of care indicators for EDs.

Methods:

The process was led by a nationally representative steering committee and expert panel (representatives from hospital administration, emergency medicine, health information, government, and provincial quality councils). A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify candidate indicators. The expert panel reviewed candidate indicators in a modified Delphi panel process using electronic surveys; final decisions on inclusion of indicators were made by the steering committee in a guided nominal group process with facilitated discussion. Indicators in the final set were ranked based on their priority for measurement. A gap analysis identified areas where future indicator development is needed. A feasibility study of measuring the final set of indicators using current Canadian administrative databases was conducted.

Results:

A total of 170 candidate indicators were generated from the literature; these were assessed based on scientific soundness and their relevance or importance. Using predefined scoring criteria in two rounds of surveys, indicators were coded as “retained” (53), “discarded” (78), or “borderline” (39). A final set of 48 retained indicators was selected and grouped in nine categories (patient satisfaction, ED operations, patient safety, pain management, pediatrics, cardiac conditions, respiratory conditions, stroke, and sepsis or infection). Gap analysis suggested the need for new indicators in patient satisfaction, a healthy workplace, mental health and addiction, elder care, and community-hospital integration. Feasibility analysis found that 13 of 48 indicators (27%) can be measured using existing national administrative databases.

Discussion:

A broadly representative modified Delphi panel process resulted in a consensus on a set of 48 evidencebased quality of care indicators for EDs. Future work is required to generate technical definitions to enable the uptake of these indicators to support benchmarking, quality improvement, and accountability efforts.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidencebased quality of care indicators
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidencebased quality of care indicators
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidencebased quality of care indicators
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G-147, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5; mjs@ices.on.ca

References

Hide All
1.Pitts, SR, Niska, RW, Xu, J,et al. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 emergency department summary, National Health Statistics Reports; no 7. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2008.
2.Carriere, G. Use of hospital emergency room. Statistics Canada Health Reports 2004;16(1).
3.McCaig, LF, Stussman, BJ. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1996 emergency department summary. Adv Data 1997;(293):120.
4.Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System. Hospital-based emergency care: at the breaking point. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2006.
5.Bond, K, Ospina, MB, Blitz, S, et al. Frequency, determinants and impact of overcrowding in emergency departments in Canada: a national survery. Healthc Q 2007;10:3240.
6.Fatovich, DM, Nagree, Y, Sprivulis, P. Access block causes emergency department overcrowding and ambulance diversion in Perth, Western Australia. Emerg Med J 2005;22:351–4, doi:10.1136/emj.2004.018002.
7.Locker, T, Mason, S, Wardrope, J, et al. Targets and moving goal posts: changes in waiting times in a UK emergency department. Emerg Med J 2005;22:710–4, doi:10.1136/ emj.2004.019042.
8.Schoen, C, Doty, MM. Inequities in access to medical care in five countries: findings from the 2001 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey. Health Policy 2004;67: 309–22, doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.09.006.
9.Schoen, C, Osborn, R, Huynh, PT, et al. Primary care and health system performance: adults’ experiences in five countries health affairs, no. 2004. doi:10.1377/hlthaff .w4.487.
10.Vancouver Coastal Health. Innovation reduces ER congestion in lower mainland (March, 2009). Available at: http://www.vch. ca/about_us/news/media_contacts/news_releases/irmovation_ reduces_er_congestion_in_lower_mainland (accessed January 4, 2010).
11.Alberta Health Services. Edmonton EMS, Capital Health hopeful changes will improve ambulance access (April 12, 2007). Available at: http://www.capitalhealth.ca/NewsAndEvents/ NewsReleases/2007/Ambulance_access.htm (accessed January 4, 2010).
12.Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. Ontario wait times. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/wait_mn.html (accessed January 4, 2010).
13.Alberti, G. Transforming emergency care in England. London: National Health Service; 2005. p. 144.
14.Brimelow, A, British Broadcasting Corporation News. A&E target “risks patient safety.” Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/low/health/8580761.stm (accessed March 24, 2010).
15.Institute of Medicine. Pathways to quality health care: performance measurement, accelerating improvement. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2006.
16.McGlynn, EA. Introduction and overview of the conceptual framework for a national quality measurement and reporting system. Med Care 2003;41:11–7, doi:10.1097/00005650-200301000-00001.
17.McGlynn, EA. An evidence-based national quality measurement and reporting system. Med Care 2003;41:1815, doi:10.1097/00005650-200301000-00003.
18.Galvin, RS, McGlynn, EA. Using performance measurement to drive improvement: a road map for change. Med Care 2003;41:148–60, doi:10.1097/00005650-200301001-00006.
19.Marshall, MN, Shekelle, PG, Leatherman, S, et al. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA 2000;283:1866–74, doi:10.1001/jama.283.14.1866.
20.Cain, EF. Improving emergency medical services for children through outcomes research: an interdisciplinary approach. Proceedings of a conference. Ambbul Pediatr 2002;2:285348, doi:10.1367/1539-4409(2002)002<0285:IEMSFC>2.0. CO;2.
21.Lindsay, P, Schull, M, Bronskill, S, et al. The development of indicators to measure the quality of clinical care in emergency departments following a modified-Delphi approach. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9:1131–9, doi:10.1111/ j.1553-2712.2002.tb01567.x.
22.Guttmann, A, Razzaq, A, Lindsay, P, et al. Development of measures of the quality of emergency department care for children using a structured panel process. Pediatrics 2006; 118:114–23, doi 10.1542/peds.2005-3029.
23.Rowe, BH, Bond, K, Ospina, MB, et al. Data collection on patients in emergency departments in Canada. CJEM 2006;8: 417–24.
24.Welker, JA, Huston, M, McCue, JD. Antibiotic timing and errors in diagnosing pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 2008;168: 351–6, doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2007.84.
25.Health Quality Council of Alberta. Alberta Quality Matrix for Health. Available at: http://www.hqca.ca/index.php?id=%2035 (accessed Feb 1, 2008).
26.Hospital Report Research Collaborative. Hospital performance results 2008: emergency department care. Available at: http:// www.hospitalreport.ca/downloads/2008/edc_2008.html (accessed Nov 20, 2009).

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed