ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2015
Evaluation of headache service quality indicators: pilot implementation in two specialist-care centres.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Global Campaign turns 18: a brief review of its activities and achievements.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Review
- What is the value and impact of the adaptation process on quality indicators for local use? A scoping review.PloS one · 2022Article
- Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 3. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: findings and conclusions.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
- Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and descriptionThe journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
- Headache service quality evaluation: implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Europe.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
- Proposal of a clinical care pathway for quality and safe management of headache patients: a consensus study report.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Quality assurance in specialized headache units in Spain: an observational prospective study.The journal of headache and pain · 2019Observational
- The Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) Indices: measures of burden for clinical management and population-based research.The journal of headache and pain · 2018Article
- Quality indicators in headache care: an implementation study in six Italian specialist-care centres.The journal of headache and pain · 2017Article
- Headache service quality: evaluation of quality indicators in 14 specialist-care centres.The journal of headache and pain · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating quality of health care is increasingly recognized as an important contributor to the advancement of health-care delivery. We recently developed a set of quality indicators for headache care, intended to be applicable across countries, cultures and settings so that deficiencies in headache care worldwide might be recognized and rectified. These indicators themselves require evaluation and proof of fitness for purpose. This pilot study begins this process.
methodsWe tested the quality indicators in the tertiary headache centres of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany, and the Hospital da Luz in Lisbon, Portugal. Using seven previously-developed enquiry instruments, we interrogated health-care providers (HCPs), including doctors, nurses, psychologists and physiotherapists, as well as consecutive patients and their medical records.
resultsThe questionnaires were easily understood by both HCPs and patients and were not unduly time-consuming. The results from the two headache centres were comparable despite their differences in structure, staffing and language. These findings met the purpose of the study. Diagnoses were made according to ICHD criteria and critically evaluated during follow-up. However, diagnostic diaries and instruments assessing burden and response to treatment were not always in place or routinely utilised. Triage systems adjusted waiting times to urgency of need. Treatment plans included pathways to other specialities. Patients felt welcomed, reassured and educated, and were mostly satisfied. Discussion points arose over inclusion of psychological therapies in treatment plans; over recording of outcomes; over indicators of efficiency and equitability (protocols to limit wastage of resources, systems to measure input costs and means of ensuring equal access to the services); and over protocols for reporting serious adverse events.
conclusionThis pilot study to assess feasibility of the methods and acceptability of the instruments of headache service quality evaluation was successful. The project is ready to be taken into its next stages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.