TY - JOUR
T1 - Methods of Capturing Process Outcomes in Quality Improvement Trials
T2 - A Systematic Review
AU - Radisic, Gorjana
AU - de la Perrelle, Lenore
AU - Laver, Kate
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - Healthcare quality can be measured by studying structure, processes, and outcomes. This study examines how trialists capture process outcomes in implementation trials to provide guidance for researchers and health professionals. Electronic databases were searched, and two researchers performed the title, abstract, and full-text selection. Only implementation studies involving nonpharmacological approaches were included. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy and completeness by a second reviewer. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. Of the 3,186 articles screened, 24 studies matched our inclusion criteria. Most studies were cluster randomized control trials, followed by interrupted time series studies and stepped wedge studies. The population in the studies was diverse and settings included hospitals, community centers, residential aged care facilities, and primary care. The reporting of process measures across the included studies varied, and there was limited information about the mechanisms of data collection procedures. Nineteen studies extracted information about processes from electronic medical records, patient records, or chart reviews. The remaining five studies used staff surveys. Challenges remain in the practical aspect of data collection for measuring process outcomes, particularly outside of hospital settings or where processes are hard to capture in patient records.
AB - Healthcare quality can be measured by studying structure, processes, and outcomes. This study examines how trialists capture process outcomes in implementation trials to provide guidance for researchers and health professionals. Electronic databases were searched, and two researchers performed the title, abstract, and full-text selection. Only implementation studies involving nonpharmacological approaches were included. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy and completeness by a second reviewer. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. Of the 3,186 articles screened, 24 studies matched our inclusion criteria. Most studies were cluster randomized control trials, followed by interrupted time series studies and stepped wedge studies. The population in the studies was diverse and settings included hospitals, community centers, residential aged care facilities, and primary care. The reporting of process measures across the included studies varied, and there was limited information about the mechanisms of data collection procedures. Nineteen studies extracted information about processes from electronic medical records, patient records, or chart reviews. The remaining five studies used staff surveys. Challenges remain in the practical aspect of data collection for measuring process outcomes, particularly outside of hospital settings or where processes are hard to capture in patient records.
KW - healthcare
KW - implementation trials
KW - outcome measurement
KW - process measures
KW - quality improvement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129997109&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/1327
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/1135667
U2 - 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000336
DO - 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000336
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35119423
AN - SCOPUS:85129997109
SN - 1062-2551
VL - 44
SP - 131
EP - 151
JO - Journal for Healthcare Quality
JF - Journal for Healthcare Quality
IS - 3
ER -