Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32349757›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2020

Home care quality indicators based on the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC): a systematic review.

Aylin Wagner, René Schaffert, Nathalie Möckli, Franziska Zúñiga, Julia Dratva

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Aylin WagnerZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professions, Institute of Health Sciences, Technikumstrasse 71, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland. aylin.wagner@zhaw.ch.
René SchaffertZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professions, Institute of Health Sciences, Technikumstrasse 71, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Nathalie MöckliUniversity of Basel, Medical Faculty, Department of Public Health, Institute of Nursing Science, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Franziska ZúñigaUniversity of Basel, Medical Faculty, Department of Public Health, Institute of Nursing Science, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Julia DratvaZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professions, Institute of Health Sciences, Technikumstrasse 71, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland.

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 167499
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne way of measuring the quality of home care are quality indicators (QIs) derived from data collected with the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC). In order to produce meaningful results for quality improvement and quality comparisons across home care organizations (HCOs) and over time, RAI-HC QIs must be valid and reliable. The aim of this systematic review was to identify currently existing RAI-HC QIs and to summarize the scientific knowledge on the validity and reliability of these QIs.

methodsA systematic review was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library. Studies describing the development process or the psychometric characteristics of RAI-HC QIs were eligible. The data extraction involved a general description of the included studies as well as the identified RAI-HC QIs and information on validity and reliability. The methodological quality of the identified RAI-HC QI sets was assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument.

resultsFour studies out of 659 initial hits met the inclusion criteria. The included studies described the development and validation process of three RAI-HC QI sets comprising 48 unique RAI-HC QIs, which predominantly refer to outcome of care. Overall, the validity and reliability of the identified RAI-HC QIs were not sufficiently tested. The methodological quality of the three identified RAI-HC QI sets varied across the four AIRE instrument domains. None of the QI sets reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% and higher in all four AIRE instrument domains.

conclusionsThis is the first review that systematically summarized and appraised the available scientific evidence on the validity and reliability of RAI-HC QIs. It identified insufficient reporting of RAI-HC QIs validation processes and reliability as well as missing state-of-the-art methodologies. The review provides guidance as to what additional validity and reliability testing are needed to strengthen the scientific soundness of RAI-HC QIs. Considering that RAI-HC QIs are already implemented and used to measure and compare quality of home care, further investigations on RAI-HC QIs reliability and validity is recommended.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareHome Care ServicesHumansReproducibility of ResultsHome-based careHome careInterRAINursingQuality indicatorsReliabilitySystematic reviewValidity

Identifiers

PMID32349757
PMCPMC7191714

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.