Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus

Constructing nursing quality indicators for intraoperative acquired pressure injury in cancer patients based on guidelines

Cancer patients have a high incidence of intraoperative acquired pressure injury (IAPI). Constructing IAPI quality indicators can reduce the incidence of pressure injury, but there are a lack of these indicators targeting cancer patients. Based on this, this study develops a system of quality indicators for IAPI. Thirty-four potential indicators were included based on the literature review. The 26 experts were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of each indicator using three rounds of email survey. The authoritative coefficient ranged from 0.92 to 0.94. After three rounds of Delphi expert consultation, nine nursing quality indicators were identified for IAPI in cancer patients. The mean importance or feasibility ratings ranged from 4.77 to 5.81 on a six-point scale, with variation coefficients ranging from 0.07 to 0.26. The percentage of full score for potential indicators ranged from 23.10% to 80.80%. Over three rounds, the Kendall's W coefficients ranged from 0.157 to 0.354 (P < .01). The absolute and relative importance and feasibility of the nine indicators were identified as potentially valid measures of nursing quality indicators for IAPI in cancer patients. This instrument is the first set of IAPI quality indicators developed specifically for cancer patients, and it should be useful for evaluating and improving the quality of IAPI in this population.

Comparing two different orthogeriatric models of care for hip fracture patients: an observational prospective cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hip fractures are almost always operated with quite extensive surgery and are often frail with a high risk of complications, increased dependency, and death. Orthogeriatric interdisciplinary care has shown better results compared with orthopaedic care alone. The best way of delivering orthogeriatric care, however, is still largely unknown. It is believed that a high degree of integration and shared care is better than on-demand consultative services. We aimed to evaluate two different orthogeriatric models for patients with hip fracture.

METHODS

A prospective hip fracture quality database was used to evaluate two coexisting models of care from 2019 to 2021 in our hospital. An 'integrated care model' (ICM) was compared with a 'geriatric consult service' (GCS).

RESULTS

516 patients were available for analysis, 360 from ICM and 156 from GCS. Mean age was 84 years. There were 370 (72%) women. American Society of Anesthesiologists class and prefracture cognitive impairment was similar between the groups. There were more patients with femoral neck fractures in the ICM group, and more patients were living independently prefracture. A logistic regression adjusting for the variables above showed that more patients in the ICM group were given a nerve block preoperatively (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.97); p<0.01), had their urinary catheter removed the first day after surgery (OR 1.9 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.89); p<0.01), were mobilised to standing or seated in a chair beside the bed the first day after surgery (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.03 to 2.30); p=0.033) and more ICM patients were considered for treatment against osteoporosis (OR 8.58 (95% CI 4.03 to 18.28); p<0.001). There were no significant differences in time to surgery, length of stay, discharge destination or mortality.

CONCLUSION

The ICM group performed equally good or better on all quality indicators than the GCS.

Identifying Quality Indicators for the Care of Hospitalized Injured Older Adults: A Scoping Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

Older adults represent more than 50% of trauma admissions in many high-income countries. Furthermore, they are at increased risk for complications, resulting in worse health outcomes than younger adults and a significant health care utilization burden. Quality indicators (QIs) are used to assess the quality of care in trauma systems, but few QIs reflect responses to older patients' specific needs. We aimed to (1) identify QIs used to assess acute hospital care for injured older patients, (2) assess support for identified QIs and, (3) identify gaps in existing QIs.

DESIGN

Scoping review of the scientific and gray literature.

METHODS

Selection and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers. The level of support was assessed by the number of sources reporting QIs and whether they were developed according to scientific evidence, expert consensus, and patients' perspectives.

RESULTS

Of 10,855 identified studies, 167 were eligible. Among 257 different QIs identified, 52% were hip fracture specific. Gaps were identified for head injuries, rib, and pelvic ring fractures. Although 61% of QIs assessed care processes, 21% and 18% focused on structures and outcomes, respectively. Although most QIs were based on literature reviews and/or expert consensus, patients' perspective was rarely accounted for. The 15 QIs with the highest level of support included minimum time between emergency department arrival and ward admission, minimum time to surgery for fractures, assessment by a geriatrician, orthogeriatric review for hip fracture patients, delirium screening, prompt and appropriate analgesia, early mobilizations, and physiotherapy.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Multiple QIs were identified, but their level of support was limited, and important gaps were identified. Future work should focus on achieving consensus for a set of QIs to assess the quality of trauma care to older adults. Such QIs could be used for quality improvement and ultimately improve outcomes for injured older adults.

Construction of nursing-sensitive quality indicators for epilepsy in China: A Delphi consensus study

OBJECTIVE

The quality and safety of epilepsy care are of great importance because seizures are unpredictable. The aim of this study was to develop a set of nursing-sensitive quality indicators (NSQIs) for assessing and improving the quality of epilepsy nursing care in China.

METHODS

An international literature review, a cross-sectional survey and a qualitative study were conducted to identify candidate NSQIs for epilepsy care and compile a questionnaire. Then, two rounds of electronic Delphi studies were conducted with a panel of 27 independent experts to identify the final NSQIs for epilepsy.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine candidate NSQIs were extracted for the Delphi process. The recovery rates in the first and second rounds of expert consultations were 92.6% and 96.2%, respectively. The experts' authority coefficients of the two rounds were 0.876 and 0.878, respectively. The Kendall W value of the two rounds ranged between 0.094 and 0.200 (p<0.001). Eight structure indicators, 9 process indicators and 7 outcome indicators that represented the following three domains were included in the set of NSQIs for epilepsy: nursing resource allocation, implementation of nursing care, and outcomes of patients with epilepsy.

CONCLUSION

These NSQIs for epilepsy provide a primary foundation for monitoring and improving the quality of epilepsy nursing care in China. However, the effects of these indicators on improvements in epilepsy care and outcomes in patients need to be verified in clinical practice.

Assessment Tools for the Admission of Older Adults to Inpatient Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

(1) Objective: To identify the assessment tools and outcome measures used to assess older adults for inpatient rehabilitation. (2) Design: Scoping review. (3) Data sources: ProQuest, PEDro, PubMed, CINAHL Plus with full text (EBSCO), Cochrane Library and reference lists from included studies. (4) Review method: The inclusion of studies covering patients aged >60, focusing on rehabilitation assessments delivered in hospitals in community settings. Studies reporting on rehabilitation specifically designed for older adults-testing for at least one domain that affects rehabilitation or assessments for admission to inpatient rehabilitation-were also included. Results were described both quantitatively and narratively. (5) Results: 1404 articles were identified through selected databases and registers, and these articles underwent a filtering process intended to identify and remove any duplicates. This process reduced the number to 1186 articles. These, in turn, were screened for inclusion criteria, as a result of which 37 articles were included in the final review. The majority of assessments for geriatric rehabilitation were carried out by a multidisciplinary team. Multiple studies considered more than one domain during assessment, with a high percentage evaluating a specific outcome measure used in geriatric rehabilitation. The most common domains assessed were function, cognition and medical status-with communication, vision and pain being the least common. A total of 172 outcome measures were identified in this review, with MMSE, BI, FIM and CCI being the most frequent. (6) Conclusions: This review highlights the lack of standardised approaches in existing assessment processes. Generally, older-adult-rehabilitation assessments struggle to capture rehabilitation potential in a holistic manner. Hence, a predictive model of rehabilitation for assessing patients at the initial stages would be useful in planning a patient-specific programme aimed at maximising functional independence and, thus, quality of life.

Trends in data quality and quality indicators 5 years after implementation of the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit

PURPOSE

The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA), a nationwide hip fracture registry in the Netherlands, registers hip fracture patients and aims to improve quality of care since 2016. This study shows trends in the data quality during the first 5 years of data acquisition within the DHFA, as well as trends over time for designated quality indicators (QI).

METHODS

All patients registered in the DHFA between 1-1-2016 and 31-12-2020 were included. Data quality-registry case coverage and data completeness-and baseline characteristics are reported. Five QI are analysed: Time to surgery < 48 h, assessment for osteoporosis, orthogeriatric co-management, registration of functional outcomes at three months, 30-day mortality. The independent association between QI results and report year was tested using mixed-effects logistic models and in the case of 30-day mortality adjusted for casemix.

RESULTS

In 2020, the case capture of the DHFA comprised 85% of the Dutch hip fracture patients, 66/68 hospitals participated. The average of missing clinical values was 7.5% in 2016 and 3.2% in 2020. The 3 months follow-up completeness was 36.2% (2016) and 46.8% (2020). The QI 'time to surgery' was consistently high, assessment for osteoporosis remained low, orthogeriatric co-management scores increased without significance, registration of functional outcomes improved significantly and 30-day mortality rates remained unchanged.

CONCLUSION

The DHFA has successfully been implemented in the past five years. Trends show improvement on data quality. Analysis of several QI indicate points of attention. Future perspectives include lowering the burden of registration, whilst improving (registration of) hip fracture patients outcomes.