Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36424603›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2022

Evidence for publicly reported quality indicators in residential long-term care: a systematic review.

Magdalena Osińska, Lauriane Favez, Franziska Zúñiga

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

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Reporting aged care quality data monthly, quarterly, or annually? A cross-sectional study of 349 613 residents and 2803 long-term care facilities.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Improving quality measurement for dementia care.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Key performance indicators for pharmaceutical services: A systematic review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. [Quality measurement in long-term care facilities-the need for a systemic understanding].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023
    Review
  15. 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

3 authors.

Magdalena OsińskaInstitute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Lauriane FavezInstitute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Franziska ZúñigaInstitute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland. franziska.zuniga@unibas.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing number of countries are using or planning to use quality indicators (QIs) in residential long-term care. Knowledge regarding the current state of evidence on usage and methodological soundness of publicly reported clinical indicators of quality in nursing homes is needed. The study aimed to answer the questions: 1) Which health-related QIs for residents in long-term care are currently publicly reported internationally? and 2) What is the methodological quality of these indicators?

methodsA systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Embase in October 2019 and last updated on August 31st, 2022. Grey literature was also searched. We used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument for the methodological quality assessment of the identified QIs.

resultsOf 23'344 identified records, 22 articles and one report describing 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we found 17 websites publishing information on QIs. We identified eight countries publicly reporting a total of 99 health-related QIs covering 31 themes. Each country used between six and 31 QIs. The most frequently reported indicators were pressure ulcers, falls, physical restraints, and weight loss. For most QI sets, we found basic information regarding e.g., purpose, definition of the indicators, risk-adjustment, and stakeholders' involvement in QIs' selection. Little up to date information was found regarding validity, reliability and discriminative power of the QIs. Only the Australian indicator set reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% or higher in all four AIRE instrument domains.

conclusionsLittle information is available to the public and researchers for the evaluation of a large number of publicly reported QIs in the residential long-term care sector. Better reporting is needed on the methodological quality of QIs in this setting, whether they are meant for internal quality improvement or provider comparison.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareQuality Indicators, Health CareAustraliaHumansQuality ImprovementReproducibility of ResultsLong-term careNursing homesPublic reporting of healthcare dataQuality indicatorsReview

Identifiers

PMID36424603
PMCPMC9686098

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.