Measuring quality

Measuring quality of care in autologous breast reconstruction: a Delphi consensus

Measuring and benchmarking quality of care in surgical oncology has been gaining popularity. In autologous breast reconstruction (ABR), a standardized set of indicators to assess quality of care is lacking. In this study, we defined a set of evidence-based quality indicators for autologous breast reconstruction. First, we performed a systematic review to identify factors related to quality of care in ABR. Variables were categorized depending on their function: indicators related to outcome, indicators related to process and case-mix variables. The review was followed by a 3-round Delphi Consensus to determine which indicators and case-mix-variables were considered relevant and feasible for inclusion in an ABR standard set of indicators. 932 unique articles were identified, of which 110 papers were included in the study. Indicators were categorized by function: outcome, process and case-mix variables. In total, 8 process indicators and 41 outcome indicators were extracted. 30 case-mix-variables were included. Following 3 rounds of questioning in the Delphi Consensus, all respondents agreed on type of ABR, oncological outcomes and patient satisfaction for the standard set. Indicators related to complications were consistently ranked highly. Most process indicators were not chosen after 3 rounds of questioning. 11 case-mix-variables were included in the final set. Following the Delphi Consensus, it was possible to identify 33 process and outcome indicators and 11 case-mix-variables for inclusion for a standard set of quality indicators. With the inclusion of both objective and patient-reported outcome measures, this set of indicators provides a multidimensional measurement tool for quality assessment for ABR.

Social media and rating sites as tools to understanding quality of care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Insight into the quality of health care is important for any stakeholder including patients, professionals, and governments. In light of a patient-centered approach, it is essential to assess the quality of health care from a patient's perspective, which is commonly done with surveys or focus groups. Unfortunately, these "traditional" methods have significant limitations that include social desirability bias, a time lag between experience and measurement, and difficulty reaching large groups of people. Information on social media could be of value to overcoming these limitations, since these new media are easy to use and are used by the majority of the population. Furthermore, an increasing number of people share health care experiences online or rate the quality of their health care provider on physician rating sites. The question is whether this information is relevant to determining or predicting the quality of health care.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of our research was to systematically analyze the relation between information shared on social media and quality of care.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review with the following goals: (1) to map the literature on the association between social media and quality of care, (2) to identify different mechanisms of this relationship, and (3) to determine a more detailed agenda for this relatively new research area. A recognized scoping review methodology was used. We developed a search strategy based on four themes: social media, patient experience, quality, and health care. Four online scientific databases were searched, articles were screened, and data extracted. Results related to the research question were described and categorized according to type of social media. Furthermore, national and international stakeholders were consulted throughout the study, to discuss and interpret results.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included, of which 21 were concerned with health care rating sites. Several studies indicate a relationship between information on social media and quality of health care. However, some drawbacks exist, especially regarding the use of rating sites. For example, since rating is anonymous, rating values are not risk adjusted and therefore vulnerable to fraud. Also, ratings are often based on only a few reviews and are predominantly positive. Furthermore, people providing feedback on health care via social media are presumably not always representative for the patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media and particularly rating sites are an interesting new source of information about quality of care from the patient's perspective. This new source should be used to complement traditional methods, since measuring quality of care via social media has other, but not less serious, limitations. Future research should explore whether social media are suitable in practice for patients, health insurers, and governments to help them judge the quality performance of professionals and organizations.