ABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN: En la actualidad no se dispone de un conjunto adecuado de indicadores para benchmarking en las unidades de cirugía general del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Este trabajo presenta la selección, el desarrollo y los resultados del estudio piloto de un primer grupo de indicadores para esta finalidad. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una selección y priorización de indicadores mediante un Delphi modificado con un grupo de expertos de la Asociación Española de Cirujanos. Los indicadores priorizados fueron sometidos a un estudio cualitativo de factibilidad y, para aquellos medidos por historia clínica, cuali-cuantitativo de fiabilidad en un hospital público. Se obtuvieron resultados de concordancia simple y estadístico kappa, ajustado y no ajustado por prevalencias y sesgos, para 3 evaluadores con un muestreo aleatorio sistemático de 30 casos por indicador. RESULTADOS: De los 13 indicadores propuestos, 12 resultaron factibles (5 de historia clínica y 7 de bases de datos). De los 5 de historia, 3 resultaron fiables (concordancia interobservador > 95% o índice kappa > 0,6 para compuestos y subindicadores, o bien kappa ajustado por prevalencias y sesgos > 0,6 en presencia de prevalencias extremas) y 2 necesitaron ser redefinidos a partir de los resultados obtenidos. CONCLUSIONES: Los 5 indicadores de historia clínica podrán utilizarse para comparar unidades quirúrgicas, mientras que los 7 indicadores factibles de bases de datos necesitarán mayor validación y ajuste de riesgo para permitir comparaciones entre servicios. Los resultados del centro evaluado muestran áreas de mejora en algunos procesos de la atención
INTRODUCTION:At present there is a lack of appropriate quality measures for benchmarking in general surgery units of Spanish National Health System. The aim of this study is to present the selection, development and pilot-testing of an initial set of surgical quality indicators for this purpose. METHODS: A modified Delphi was performed with experts from the Spanish Surgeons Association in order to prioritize previously selected indicators. Then, a pilot study was carried out in a public hospital encompassing qualitative analysis of feasibility for prioritized indicators and an additional qualitative and quantitative three-rater reliability assessment for medical record-based indicators. Observed inter-rater agreement, prevalence adjusted and bias adjusted kappa and non-adjusted kappa were performed, using a systematic random sample (n = 30) for each of these indicators. RESULTS: Twelve out of 13 proposed indicators were feasible: 5 medical record-based indicators and 7 indicators based on administrative databases. From medical record-based indicators, 3 were reliable (observed agreement > 95%, adjusted kappa index > 0.6 or non adjusted kappa index > 0.6 for composites and its components) and 2 needed further refinement. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, medical record-based indicators could be used for comparison purposes, whilst further research must be done for validation and risk-adjustment of outcome indicators from administrative databases. Compliance results in the adequacy of informed consent, diagnosis-to-treatment delay in colorectal cancer, and antibiotic prophylaxis show room for improvement in the pilot-tested hospital
Subject(s)
Humans , Benchmarking/methods , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Surgery Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Hospital Information Systems/organization & administration , General Surgery/organization & administration , Biomedical Enhancement/methods , Quality Improvement/organization & administrationABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: At present there is a lack of appropriate quality measures for benchmarking in general surgery units of Spanish National Health System. The aim of this study is to present the selection, development and pilot-testing of an initial set of surgical quality indicators for this purpose. METHODS: A modified Delphi was performed with experts from the Spanish Surgeons Association in order to prioritize previously selected indicators. Then, a pilot study was carried out in a public hospital encompassing qualitative analysis of feasibility for prioritized indicators and an additional qualitative and quantitative three-rater reliability assessment for medical record-based indicators. Observed inter-rater agreement, prevalence adjusted and bias adjusted kappa and non-adjusted kappa were performed, using a systematic random sample (n=30) for each of these indicators. RESULTS: Twelve out of 13 proposed indicators were feasible: 5 medical record-based indicators and 7 indicators based on administrative databases. From medical record-based indicators, 3 were reliable (observed agreement >95%, adjusted kappa index >0.6 or non-adjusted kappa index >0.6 for composites and its components) and 2 needed further refinement. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, medical record-based indicators could be used for comparison purposes, whilst further research must be done for validation and risk-adjustment of outcome indicators from administrative databases. Compliance results in the adequacy of informed consent, diagnosis-to-treatment delay in colorectal cancer, and antibiotic prophylaxis show room for improvement in the pilot-tested hospital.
