A Method of Developing and Weighting Explicit Process of Care Criteria for Quality Assessment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9103521 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Carol M Ashton (Veterans Health Administration, corresponding author), David H Kuykendall (Veterans Health Administration, corresponding author), Michael L Johnson (0000-0002-4018-4647, Veterans Health Administration, corresponding author), Chuan Chuan Wun (Veterans Health Administration, corresponding author), Nelda P Wray (Health Services Research & Development, corresponding author), Mae Jean Carr (Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center), Carl H Slater (The University of Texas at Austin), Louis Wu (Veterans Health Administration, corresponding author), George R W Bush (Veterans Health Administration, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1994 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 8 |
| Pages | 755-770 |
| Publication date | 1994-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Medical Care (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948 |
| Publisher | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1097/00005650-199408000-00001 |
| PMID | 8057693 |
| OpenAlex | W2094127435 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 9 |
The use of explicit criteria to evaluate how well processes of care conform to accepted standards is a key method of quality assessment. Synthesizing four decades of literature, we devised an inexpensive, 6-step method of developing reliable, content-valid, explicit process criteria. This paper describes the method using a set of congestive heart failure criteria. In step 1 of the Criteria Development Method, criteria are derived from state-of-the-art clinical literature. In step 2, criteria are refined by expert panels. In this study, panelists refined the items by mail in a three-round Delphi process. In step 3, decisions about unit-or differential item weighting are made; we derived differential item weights from the panelists' third-round ratings. Step 4 consists of flagging items which may yield little information, i.e., consensus items of low import, and nonconsensus items. Numeric flags were computed using third-round median ratings and their interquartile ranges. Selection of a scoring method to summarize scores and communicate results is done in step 5. In step 6, chart reviewers are trained, inter-rater reliability is measured, and items with poor reliability are culled. This straightforward developmental method can be used to devise explicit process criteria for use in ambulatory or hospital settings and to evaluate care delivered by different types of providers. The method yields reliable criteria representing accepted standards of current clinical practice. This high content validity is a sine qua non for convergent and predictive validity, both of which must be demonstrated in empirical studies in which the criteria are compared against external yardsticks
Data mining · Delphi method · Flagging · Process (computing) · Quality (philosophy) · Reliability (semiconductor) · Weighting · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Medicine · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Lessons learned in the development of process quality indicators for cancer care in Japan
Construção de atribuições em saúde bucal para agentes comunitários de saúde através da técnica Delphi
Quality of Health Care for Women
Process of Care in Hispanic, Black, and White VA Beneficiaries
The Effect of Panel Membership and Feedback on Ratings in a Two-Round Delphi Survey
The Association of Quality of Care and Occurrence of In-Hospital, Treatment-Related Complications
Validation of Performance Indicators for Rehabilitation of Workers With Mental Health Problems
An Empirical Assessment of the Validity of Explicit and Implicit Process-of-Care Criteria for Quality Assessment
Appropriateness in health care
High agreement but low kappa
High agreement but low Kappa
Consensus methods
Assessment of Ambulatory Care
Methodological Development of a System of Medical Audit
Developing Criteria for Ordering Common Ancillary Services
Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Volume II. The Criteria and Standards of Quality
Development of Criteria for Quality Assurance of Ambulatory Child Health Care
Quality Assurance of Ambulatory Child Health Care Opinions of Practicing Physicians About Proposed Criteria
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,31 |
| Citation span | 1997 - 2021 (25) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |