Display options
Share it on

BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Feb 15;3(1):e000479. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000479. eCollection 2018.

Defining quality indicators for emergency care delivery: findings of an expert consensus process by emergency care practitioners in Africa.

BMJ global health

Morgan C Broccoli, Rachel Moresky, Julia Dixon, Ivy Muya, Cara Taubman, Lee A Wallis, Emilie J Calvello Hynes

Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  2. sidHARTe Program, Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA.
  3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
  4. Nursing Committee Chair and Executive Committee Secretary, African Federation for Emergency Medicine, Cape Town, South Africa.
  5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Harlem Hospital, New York, USA.
  6. Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

PMID: 29527337 PMCID: PMC5841514 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000479

Abstract

Facility-based emergency care delivery in low-income and middle- income countries is expanding rapidly, particularly in Africa. Unfortunately, these efforts rarely include measurement of the quality or the impact of care provided, which is essential for improvement of care provision. Our aim was to determine context-appropriate quality indicators that will allow uniform and objective data collection to enhance emergency care delivery throughout Africa. We undertook a multiphase expert consensus process to identify, rank and refine quality indicators. A comprehensive review of the literature identified existing indicators; those associated with a substantial burden of disease in Africa were categorised and presented to consensus conference delegates. Participants selected indicators based on inclusion criteria and priority clinical conditions. The indicators were then presented to a group of expert clinicians via on-line survey; all meeting agreements were refined in-person by a separate panel and ranked according to validity, feasibility and value. The consensus working group selected seven conditions addressing nearly 75% of mortality in the African region to prioritise during indicator development, and the final product at the end of the multiphase study was a list of 76 indicators. This comprehensive process produced a robust set of quality indicators for emergency care that are appropriate for use in the African setting. The adaptation of a standardised set of indicators will enhance the quality of care provided and allow for comparison of system strengthening efforts and resource distribution.

Keywords: health services research; health systems; health systems evaluation

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. Int J Emerg Med. 2015 Dec;8(1):39 - PubMed
  2. Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Nov;9(11):1131-9 - PubMed
  3. Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Dec;18(12):1358-70 - PubMed
  4. Int J Emerg Med. 2011 Dec 12;4:75 - PubMed
  5. Emerg Med J. 2014 Nov;31(11):926-9 - PubMed
  6. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013 Apr;20(2):109-14 - PubMed
  7. Int J Emerg Med. 2010 Nov 05;3(4):341-9 - PubMed
  8. J Adv Nurs. 1994 Jan;19(1):180-6 - PubMed
  9. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(11):900-5 - PubMed
  10. Emerg Med J. 2004 Jan;21(1):47-50 - PubMed
  11. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013 Aug 09;21:62 - PubMed
  12. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Jun;19(3):141-9 - PubMed
  13. Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Jun 1;93(6):417-23 - PubMed
  14. Emerg Med J. 2016 Aug;33(8):573-80 - PubMed
  15. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Dec;32(12):2129-38 - PubMed
  16. Circulation. 2011 Aug 30;124(9):1038-45 - PubMed
  17. CJEM. 2007 Sep;9(5):339-46 - PubMed
  18. Emerg Med J. 2016 Nov;33(11):794-800 - PubMed
  19. JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10 - PubMed
  20. Acad Emerg Med. 2011 May;18(5):527-38 - PubMed
  21. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966 Jul;44(3):Suppl:166-206 - PubMed
  22. Emerg Med Int. 2012;2012:838610 - PubMed

Publication Types