Development of the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS): a tool for critical appraisal of quality improvement intervention publications

被引:125
作者
Hempel, Susanne [1 ]
Shekelle, Paul G. [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Jodi L. [1 ]
Danz, Margie Sherwood [1 ,3 ]
Foy, Robbie [4 ]
Lim, Yee-Wei [5 ]
Motala, Aneesa [1 ]
Rubenstein, Lisa V. [1 ,3 ,6 ]
机构
[1] RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA 90407 USA
[2] Vet Affairs West Los Angeles Med Ctr, Los Angeles, CA USA
[3] Vet Affairs Greater Los Angeles, North Hills, CA USA
[4] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Hlth Sci, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[5] Natl Univ Singapore, Saw Swee Hock Sch Publ Hlth, Singapore 117548, Singapore
[6] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Med, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
BIAS; COMMUNITY; RISK;
D O I
10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003151
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective Valid, reliable critical appraisal tools advance quality improvement (QI) intervention impacts by helping stakeholders identify higher quality studies. QI approaches are diverse and differ from clinical interventions. Widely used critical appraisal instruments do not take unique QI features into account and existing QI tools (eg, Standards for QI Reporting Excellence) are intended for publication guidance rather than critical appraisal. This study developed and psychometrically tested a critical appraisal instrument, the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) for assessing Ql-specific features of QI publications. Methods Approaches to developing the tool and ensuring validity included a literature review, in-person and online survey expert panel input, and application to empirical examples. We investigated psychometric properties in a set of diverse QI publications (N=54) by analysing reliability measures and item endorsement rates and explored sources of disagreement between reviewers. Results The QI-MQCS includes 16 content domains to evaluate QI intervention publications: Organisational Motivation, Intervention Rationale, Intervention Description, Organisational Characteristics, Implementation, Study Design, Comparator Description, Data Sources, Timing, Adherence/Fidelity, Health Outcomes, Organisational Readiness, Penetration/Reach, Sustainability, Spread and Limitations. Median inter-rater agreement for QI-MQCS items was x 0.57 (83% agreement). Item statistics indicated sufficient ability to differentiate between publications (median quality criteria met 67%). Internal consistency measures indicated coherence without excessive conceptual overlap (absolute mean interitem correlation=0.19). The critical appraisal instrument is accompanied by a user manual detailing What to consider, Where to look and How to rate. Conclusions We developed a ready-to-use, valid and reliable critical appraisal instrument applicable to healthcare QI intervention publications, but recognise scope for continuing refinement.
引用
收藏
页码:796 / 804
页数:9
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]  
Abraham C, WIDER RECOMMENDATION
[2]  
[Anonymous], AHRQ PUBLICATION
[3]  
[Anonymous], FINAL PROGR REPORT E
[4]  
[Anonymous], SEC REACH EFF AD IMP
[5]  
[Anonymous], ENCY DICT PSYCHOL
[6]  
[Anonymous], ADV SCI CONTINUOUS Q
[7]  
[Anonymous], SUGG RISK BIAS CRIT
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2008, DEV EVALUATING COMPL
[9]   Achieving Restraint-Free on an Inpatient Behavioral Health Unit [J].
Barton, Sandra A. ;
Johnson, M. Rebecca ;
Price, Lydia V. .
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOCIAL NURSING AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, 2009, 47 (01) :34-40
[10]   Identifying quality improvement intervention evaluations: is consensus achievable? [J].
Danz, M. S. ;
Rubenstein, L. V. ;
Hempel, S. ;
Foy, R. ;
Suttorp, M. ;
Farmer, M. M. ;
Shekelle, P. G. .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2010, 19 (04) :279-283