Capturing the complexity of healthcare for people with Down syndrome in quality indicators - a Delphi study involving healthcare professionals and patient organisations

Abstract Background Insight into quality of healthcare for people with Down Syndrome (DS) is limited. Quality indicators (QIs) can provide this insight. This study aims to find consensus among participants regarding QIs for healthcare for people with DS. Methods We conducted a four-round Delphi study, in which 33 healthcare professionals involved in healthcare for people with DS and two patient organisations’ representatives in the Netherlands participated. Median and 75-percentiles were used to determine consensus among the answers on 5-point Likert-scales. In each round, participants receive... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Francine A. van den Driessen Mareeuw
Antonia M. W. Coppus
Diana M. J. Delnoij
Esther de Vries
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2020
Reihe/Periodikum: BMC Health Services Research, Vol 20, Iss 1, Pp 1-15 (2020)
Verlag/Hrsg.: BMC
Schlagwörter: Down syndrome / Quality indicators / Quality of health care / Netherlands / Delphi technique / Public aspects of medicine / RA1-1270
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27584165
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05492-z

Abstract Background Insight into quality of healthcare for people with Down Syndrome (DS) is limited. Quality indicators (QIs) can provide this insight. This study aims to find consensus among participants regarding QIs for healthcare for people with DS. Methods We conducted a four-round Delphi study, in which 33 healthcare professionals involved in healthcare for people with DS and two patient organisations’ representatives in the Netherlands participated. Median and 75-percentiles were used to determine consensus among the answers on 5-point Likert-scales. In each round, participants received an overview of participants’ answers from the previous round. Results Participants agreed (consensus was achieved) that a QI-set should provide insight into available healthcare, enable healthcare improvements, and cover a large diversity of quality domains and healthcare disciplines. However, the number of QIs in the set should be limited in order to prevent registration burden. Participants were concerned that QIs would make quality information about individual healthcare professionals publicly available, which would induce judgement of healthcare professionals and harm quality, instead of improving it. Conclusions We unravelled the complexity of capturing healthcare for people with DS in a QI-set. Patients’ rights to relevant information have to be carefully balanced against providers’ entitlement to a safe environment in which they can learn and improve. A QI-set should be tailored to different healthcare disciplines and information systems, and measurement instruments should be suitable for collecting information from people with DS. Results from this study and two preceding studies, will form the basis for the further development of a QI-set.