Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21831317›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2011

Framework and indicator testing protocol for developing and piloting quality indicators for the UK quality and outcomes framework.

Stephen M Campbell, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Kerin Hannon, Martyn Burke, Annette Barber, Helen E Lester

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Methodological evaluation of the psychometric properties of medication-related quality indicators in residential aged care homes: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Assessing depression severity using the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework depression indicators: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Stephen M CampbellHealth Sciences Research Group - Primary Care, University of Manchester, UK. Stephen.campbell@manchester.ac.uk
Evangelos Kontopantelis
Kerin Hannon
Martyn Burke
Annette Barber
Helen E Lester

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality measures should be subjected to a testing protocol before being used in practice using key attributes such as acceptability, feasibility and reliability, as well as identifying issues derived from actual implementation and unintended consequences. We describe the methodologies and results of an indicator testing protocol (ITP) using data from proposed quality indicators for the United Kingdom Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF).

methodsThe indicator testing protocol involved a multi-step and methodological process: 1) The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, to test clarity and necessity, 2) data extraction from patients' medical records, to test technical feasibility and reliability, 3) diaries, to test workload, 4) cost-effectiveness modelling, and 5) semi-structured interviews, to test acceptability, implementation issues and unintended consequences. Testing was conducted in a sample of representative family practices in England. These methods were combined into an overall recommendation for each tested indicator.

resultsUsing an indicator testing protocol as part of piloting was seen as a valuable way of testing potential indicators in 'real world' settings. Pilot 1 (October 2009-March 2010) involved thirteen indicators across six clinical domains and twelve indicators passed the indicator testing protocol. However, the indicator testing protocol identified a number of implementation issues and unintended consequences that can be rectified or removed prior to national roll out. A palliative care indicator is used as an exemplar of the value of piloting using a multiple attribute indicator testing protocol - while technically feasible and reliable, it was unacceptable to practice staff and raised concerns about potentially causing actual patient harm.

conclusionsThis indicator testing protocol is one example of a protocol that may be useful in assessing potential quality indicators when adapted to specific country health care settings and may be of use to policy-makers and researchers worldwide to test the likely effect of implementing indicators prior to roll out. It builds on and codifies existing literature and other testing protocols to create a field testing methodology that can be used to produce country specific quality indicators for pay-for-performance or quality improvement schemes.

Indexed as

HumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID21831317
PMCPMC3176158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.