Key performance indicators to inform evaluation of wound care programmes for people with complex wounds: a protocol for systematic review.

Objective: The objective of the systematic review is to examine and summarise the available evidence in the literature of the use of key performance indicators (KPIs) to inform evaluation of wound care programmes and services for people with hard-to-heal (complex) wounds. The need for wound care is expected to grow with the continued ageing of the population and the resulting increased development of chronic conditions. This expected increase necessitates improvement of wound care programmes and services and their ability to deliver quality, evidence-based and cost-effective practice. The current literature lacks a systematic assessment of KPIs to inform evaluation of wound care services and programmes across various settings, and how the KPIs are used to improve the quality of wound care and achieve desired outcomes. This protocol sets out how the systemtic review will be undertaken.

Method: Primary studies will be screened from databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus, with unpublished studies and grey literature retrieved from Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The study titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers, using Covidence systematic review software to ensure they meet the inclusion criteria, who will then proceed with data extraction of the full-text using the standardised data extraction instrument. The reference lists of all studies selected for critical appraisal will be screened for additional publications. The two independent reviewers will critically appraise all studies undergoing full-text data extraction using the appropriate checklist from JBI SUMARI. At all stages, differences between reviewers will be resolved through discussion, with adjudication by a third, independent reviewer.

Results: Data points will be analysed with descriptive statistics and grouped, based on programme characteristics and publication status. Grey literature and peer-reviewed publications will form separate analyses. To answer review questions, the data will be summarised in a narrative format. A meta-analysis is not planned. At the time of writing, this protocol has been implemented up to the preliminary literature search.

Conclusion: This review will address a current literature gap and systematically identify KPIs in wound care, allowing for programmes to evaluate their quality of care and improve their services in a methodical manner.