Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30617101›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Measuring patient-centred system performance: a scoping review of patient-centred care quality indicators.

Maria-Jose Santana, Sadia Ahmed, Diane Lorenzetti, Rachel J Jolley, Kimberly Manalili, Sandra Zelinsky, Hude Quan, Mingshan Lu

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Maria-Jose SantanaCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0202-5952
Sadia AhmedDepartment of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Diane LorenzettiCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8423-3458
Rachel J JolleyCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kimberly ManaliliCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sandra ZelinskyCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Hude QuanCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7848-7256
Mingshan LuCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe shift to the patient-centred care (PCC) model as a healthcare delivery paradigm calls for systematic measurement and evaluation. In an attempt to develop patient-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs), this study aimed to identify quality indicators that can be used to measure PCC.

methodsDesign: scoping review. DATA SOURCES: studies were identified through searching seven electronic databases and the grey literature. Search terms included quality improvement, quality indicators, healthcare quality and PCC. Eligibility Criteria: articles were included if they mentioned development and/or implementation of PC-QIs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: extracted data included study characteristics (country, year of publication and type of study/article), patients' inclusion in the development of indicators and type of patient populations and point of care if applicable (eg, in-patient, out-patient and primary care).

resultsA total 184 full-text peer-reviewed articles were assessed for eligibility for inclusion; of these, 9 articles were included in this review. From the non-peer-reviewed literature, eight documents met the criteria for inclusion in this study. This review revealed the heterogeneity describing and defining the nature of PC-QIs. Most PC-QIs were presented as PCC measures and identified as guidelines, surveys or recommendations, and therefore cannot be classified as actual PC-QIs. Out of 502 ways to measure PCC, only 25 were considered to be actual PC-QIs. None of the identified articles implemented the quality indicators in care settings.

conclusionThe identification of PC-QIs is a key first step in laying the groundwork to develop evidence-based PC-QIs. Research is needed to continue the development and implementation of PC-QIs for healthcare quality improvement.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPatient-Centered CareQuality Indicators, Health Carehealthcare qualitypatient-centred carequality improvementquality indicators

Identifiers

PMID30617101
PMCPMC6326310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.