A. Olry de Labry Lima , L. García Mochón , C. Bermúdez Tamayo
{"title":"Identificación de indicadores de resultado en salud en atención primaria. Una revisión de revisiones sistemáticas","authors":"A. Olry de Labry Lima , L. García Mochón , C. Bermúdez Tamayo","doi":"10.1016/j.cali.2017.08.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This paper offers a set of 69 performance indicators that have been identified and subsequently validated and prioritised by a panel of experts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101101,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Calidad Asistencial","volume":"32 5","pages":"Pages 278-288"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cali.2017.08.001","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Calidad Asistencial","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1134282X17300544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
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.