Abstract
Objectives: Quality measurement indicators are essential for quality improvement in primary dental care (PDC). Currently there are no consensus-based core quality indicators that may be used in PDC. Furthermore, understanding of the dimensions of quality that are applicable to an overarching definition of quality in dentistry is poor. The objective of this study was to use a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method to establish consensus on the indicators that may be used to measure quality in PDC and the dimensions of quality that may inform an overarching definition of quality in dentistry.
Methods: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method was used to rate 260 quality indicators identified by a systematic review of quality measures and 19 dimensions of quality identified in a literature review. These dimensions and indicators of quality were rated on their clarity, necessity and feasibility using an online questionnaire and face-to-face meeting of 9 dental professionals, following the RAND/UCLA protocol. Following rating of indicators, composite indicators were produced to develop an initial list of quality indicators.
Results: Seventy-nine quality indicators were rated at clear, necessary and feasible for use as a quality measure. From these 47 composite measures emerged. A further 63 indicators were rated as necessary but require further development in terms of their feasibility or clarity. From these, 31 composite quality indicators for further development have been produced. Consensus on the appropriateness of the dimensions of quality described by the Institute of Medicine definition was reached. Further highly rated dimensions of quality were Technical Quality, Appropriateness, Comprehensiveness and Coordination and Continuity of care.
Conclusions: This study has identified consensus on a core set of quality indicators derived from the literature. This is a key first step toward the development of a comprehensive set of quality indicators. It has also identified consensus that the Institute of Medicine definition of quality is applicable to PDC.
Methods: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method was used to rate 260 quality indicators identified by a systematic review of quality measures and 19 dimensions of quality identified in a literature review. These dimensions and indicators of quality were rated on their clarity, necessity and feasibility using an online questionnaire and face-to-face meeting of 9 dental professionals, following the RAND/UCLA protocol. Following rating of indicators, composite indicators were produced to develop an initial list of quality indicators.
Results: Seventy-nine quality indicators were rated at clear, necessary and feasible for use as a quality measure. From these 47 composite measures emerged. A further 63 indicators were rated as necessary but require further development in terms of their feasibility or clarity. From these, 31 composite quality indicators for further development have been produced. Consensus on the appropriateness of the dimensions of quality described by the Institute of Medicine definition was reached. Further highly rated dimensions of quality were Technical Quality, Appropriateness, Comprehensiveness and Coordination and Continuity of care.
Conclusions: This study has identified consensus on a core set of quality indicators derived from the literature. This is a key first step toward the development of a comprehensive set of quality indicators. It has also identified consensus that the Institute of Medicine definition of quality is applicable to PDC.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 1-12 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Publication status | Published - 20 Jun 2019 |
| Event | 2019 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session & Exhibition - Vancouver Convention Centre, Vancouver, Canada Duration: 19 Jun 2019 → 22 Jun 2019 |
Conference
| Conference | 2019 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session & Exhibition |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | IADR 2019 |
| Country/Territory | Canada |
| City | Vancouver |
| Period | 19/06/19 → 22/06/19 |