1 / 10

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Quality Indicators Across Countries

Explore the development and comparison of clinical quality indicators derived from clinical records across different primary care systems in various countries. Discover the challenges and variations in data collection methodologies and outcomes.

fawzi
Download Presentation

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Quality Indicators Across Countries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Clinical records: main results of the anaysis UTartu 25.10.2012 Tallinn

  2. Development of the list of the clinical indicators • No goodevidence available what set of the clinical indicators derived directly from clinical records is best for quality comparisons across countries or different primary care-systems • A set of clinical quality indicators for medical audit was developed within EUPrimecareproject • Starting point for the selection has been set of the health care quality indicators developed by OECD (concerningtochroniccommonconditions)

  3. Clinical quality indicators for medical audit

  4. 1. OECD, 2 American Diabetes Association; European Association for Study of Diabetes.3 . European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary:5. 5Whitworth JA; World Health Organization, International Society of Hypertension Writing Group.2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension.

  5. Datacollection • Estonia – national data, collection in individual patient level, all indicators (260 health care providers, 2 diabetes cases and 2 hypertensive cases from each) • Lithuania- aggregated data, health centres of Kaunas region, all indicators • Hungary- aggregated, national level (by age groups and sex), not all proposed indicators (Healthcare Episode Database ) • Spain – aggregated data, almost all indicators (32 health centres) • Germany- aggregated data from Disease Management Program, not all proposed indicators (not completed yet) • Finland – aggregated data, all indicators? due data protection regulations Finland is not to allow send individualized data, only tabulated results(not completed yet). • Italy- aggregated data, only some of the indicators from Emilia Romagna Region Data 2010 (3500 GPs)

  6. Study subjects and period Dataof: • all patientswithdiagnosisofdiabetestype II (diagnoses E11 and E11.0 – E11.9 accordingtothe ICD-10 classification) • all patientswithdiagnosisofhypertension (diagnoses I10, I11, I12, I13 accordingtothe ICD-10 classification) • Year 2011

  7. Results

  8. Conclusions • Results of clinical indicator in different countries varied quite a lot • Data collection methodology is different (can we compare?) • We can not conclude any specific relation between clinical performance and PHC models since 2 countries did not finished the study yet

More Related