Article type
Abstract
Background: Evidence suggests that quality indicators be formulated based on recommendations from evidence-based guidelines informed by the best available evidence. Quality indicators should be accompanied by a description of the indicator, numerator, descriptor, any exclusions or exceptions, measure type, and context. However, even when this information is provided, there is a gap regarding how clinical teams (primarily) view quality indicators and determine how to collect data to measure these in their own setting.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop pragmatic guidance to inform the translation and implementation of quality indicators.
Methods: This approach is informed by the results of a comprehensive scoping review and guided by an international, expert panel of key knowledge users.
Results: We will present results regarding the ongoing development of guidance that will assist clinicians in ensuring the quality indicators they use in practice are guided by evidence-based approaches. When clinicians are conducting evidence implementation/quality improvement projects, they require quality indicators that are informed from evidence and that are concise, measurable, and easy to use.
Conclusions: Framing clear guidance for the development and assessment of quality indicators is imperative to ensure clinical teams are able to measure the quality of the care they deliver and identify the gaps in current practice. A pragmatic, streamlined approach for implementation in small-scale projects for quality improvement is important to ensure that evidence can be contextualized for local impact.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop pragmatic guidance to inform the translation and implementation of quality indicators.
Methods: This approach is informed by the results of a comprehensive scoping review and guided by an international, expert panel of key knowledge users.
Results: We will present results regarding the ongoing development of guidance that will assist clinicians in ensuring the quality indicators they use in practice are guided by evidence-based approaches. When clinicians are conducting evidence implementation/quality improvement projects, they require quality indicators that are informed from evidence and that are concise, measurable, and easy to use.
Conclusions: Framing clear guidance for the development and assessment of quality indicators is imperative to ensure clinical teams are able to measure the quality of the care they deliver and identify the gaps in current practice. A pragmatic, streamlined approach for implementation in small-scale projects for quality improvement is important to ensure that evidence can be contextualized for local impact.