Hospital quality indicators: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe hospital quality indicators, classifying them according to Donabedian’s structure, process and outcome model and in specific domains (quality, safety, infection and mortality) in two care divisions: inpatient and emergency services. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review identified hospital clinical indicators. Two independent investigators evaluated 70 articles/documents located in electronic databases and nine documents from the grey literature, 35 were included in the systematic review. Findings In total, 248 hospital-based indicators were classified as infection, safety, quality and mortality domains. Only 10.2 percent were identified in more than one article/document and 47 percent showed how they were calculated/obtained. Although there are scientific papers on developing, validating and hospital indicator assessment, most indicators were obtained from technical reports, government publications or health professional associations. Research limitations/implications This review identified several hospital structure, process and outcome quality indicators, which are used by different national and international groups in both research and clinical practice. Comparing performance between healthcare organizations was difficult. Common clinical care standard indicators used by different networks, programs and institutions are essential to hospital quality benchmarking. Originality/value To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first systematic review to identify and describe hospital quality indicators after a comprehensive search in MEDLINE/PubMed, etc., and the grey literature, aiming to identify as many indicators as possible. Few studies evaluate the indicators, and most are found only in the grey literature, and have been published mostly by government agencies. Documents published in scientific journals usually refer to a specific indicator or to constructing an indicator. However, indicators most commonly found are not supported by reliability or validity studies.

Quality Indicators (QI) of Acute Pain after Surgery in European Countries

“…These QIs are rather setting-and purpose-specific, rendering a meaningful comparison difficult. In a systematic review aimed at classifying QIs according to Donabedian's structure, process, and outcome model (e.g., quality, safety, infection, and mortality), Breyer et al (2019) also concluded that a comparison of outcomes was difficult due to the non-parametric nature of QIs at the national and international level. Data registries that are based on uniform definitions and guidelines can meet this requirement, as PAIN OUT demonstrates.…”

Why Clinical Nurses Couldn’t Adhere to Standard Precautions Adequately Despite their High Adherence Intention? A Quantile Regression Approach

“…HAIs is a nursingsensitive outcome [34]. If structure indicators such as adequate nurse sta ng levels are not met, process indicators such as adherence to SPs will inevitably not be met at adequate levels [35]. Consequentially, understa ng conditions and insu cient provision of nursing service lead to increases in HAIs.…”

Regional anaesthesia quality indicators for adult patients undergoing non‐cardiac surgery: a systematic review

“…A structure indicator is defined as the administrative setting that supports and directs provision of care, a process indicator relates to the act of providing the care and an outcome indicator relates to the recovery, restoration of function and survival of patients [12]. Alternatively, the Domain(s) of Health Care Quality characterise all quality measures within the domains of safety, timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, equitability and patient‐centeredness [13]. With these frameworks, it is possible to examine the quality of care within regional anaesthesia and identify areas requiring improvement.…”