«Do Not Do» recommendations for retinopathies: A mixed consensus study

PURPOSE

Among the main causes of blindness and severe vision loss are age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular oedema, and retinal vein occlusion. The «Do Not Do» recommendations are strategies to improve quality of care and optimise healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to establish, by consensus, practices of low value in the above-mentioned pathologies, in addition to estimating their occurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mixed methods study including a first phase of consensus of a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the Nominal Group technique. In the second phase, a retrospective observational study was conducted, by conducting a review of medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 7 recommendations were established for age-related macular degeneration, 4 for diabetic macular oedema, and 5 for retinal vein occlusion. A total of 1,012 medical records were reviewed by the 4 participating hospitals. The review of medical records revealed that agreed «Do Not Do's» occurred in a range between 0.6% and 31.4% of the cases included in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified «Do Not Do» recommendations in these pathologies that occur relatively often in clinical practice. It is necessary to review the healthcare processes that will enable these practices to be eradicated, and the quality of care to be improved.

«Do Not Do» recommendations for retinopathies: A mixed consensus study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Among the main causes of blindness and severe vision loss are age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular oedema, and retinal vein occlusion. The «Do Not Do» recommendations are strategies to improve quality of care and optimise healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to establish, by consensus, practices of low value in the above-mentioned pathologies, in addition to estimating their occurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mixed methods study including a first phase of consensus of a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the Nominal Group technique. In the second phase, a retrospective observational study was conducted, by conducting a review of medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 7 recommendations were established for age-related macular degeneration, 4 for diabetic macular oedema, and 5 for retinal vein occlusion. A total of 1,012 medical records were reviewed by the 4 participating hospitals. The review of medical records revealed that agreed «Do Not Do's» occurred in a range between 0.6% and 31.4% of the cases included in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified «Do Not Do» recommendations in these pathologies that occur relatively often in clinical practice. It is necessary to review the healthcare processes that will enable these practices to be eradicated, and the quality of care to be improved.

Implementation of health care quality indicators for out-of-hospital emergencies: a systematic review

Although many health care quality indicators have been defined for establishing a common, homogeneous, and reliable system for assessing emergency department care, less information is available on the use of indicators of quality in attending emergencies outside the hospital. We aimed to identify and analyze quality indicators that have appeared in the literature on out-of-hospital emergencies. This systematic review of the literature followed the ations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We developed protocols for searching 5 databases to locate studies using quality indicators to evaluate care in out-of-hospital emergencies. Studies were published between July 2017 and July 2018 in either English or Spanish. We identified 22 studies naming 333 quality indicators in out-of-hospital emergencies. The indicators were classified as clinical or nonclinical; within each of these 2 sets, we also identified domains, or subcategories. As nonclinical quality identifiers were more numerous in the literature, it seems that they are the ones most often used to assess out-of-hospital emergency care at this time. This finding leaves the door open to designing and implementing new indicators able to measure quality of care in this clinical setting.