TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality Indicators in the Clinical Specialty of Urology
T2 - A Systematic Review
AU - Koh, Harvey Jia Wei
AU - Whitelock-Wainwright, Emma
AU - Gasevic, Dragan
AU - Rankin, David
AU - Romero, Lorena
AU - Frydenberg, Mark
AU - Evans, Sue
AU - Talic, Stella
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: This work was supported by the Digital Health Cooperative Research Centre. The sponsor played no direct role in the study.
Funding Information:
Financial disclosures: Stella Talic certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Jia Wei Koh , Stella Talic, Dragan Gasevic, and Emma Whitelock-Wainwright are funded by the Digital Health Cooperative Research Centre and Monash University. David Rankin is the clinical informatics director of Cabrini Health. Lorena Romero is an information librarian for Monash University and Alfred Hospital. Mark Frydenberg and Sue Evans have nothing to disclose.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors
PY - 2022/12/26
Y1 - 2022/12/26
N2 - Context: In health care, monitoring of quality indicators (QIs) in general urology remains underdeveloped in comparison to other clinical specialties. Objective: To identify, synthesise, and appraise QIs that monitor in-hospital care for urology patients. Evidence acquisition: This systematic review included peer-reviewed articles identified via Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Global Health, Google Scholar, and grey literature from 2000 to February 19, 2021. The review was carried out under the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool for quality assessment. Evidence synthesis: A total of 5111 articles and 62 government agencies were screened for QI sets. There were a total of 57 QI sets included for analysis. Most QIs focused on uro-oncology, with prostate, bladder, and testicular cancers the most represented. The most common QIs were surgical QIs in uro-oncology (positive surgical margin, surgical volume), whereas in non-oncology the QIs most frequently reported were for treatment and diagnosis. Out of 61 articles, only four scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. Aside from QIs developed in uro-oncology, general urological QIs are underdeveloped and of poor methodological quality and most lack testing for both content validity and reliability. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for the development of methodologically robust QIs in the clinical specialty of general urology for patients to enable standardised quality of care monitoring and to improve patient outcomes. Patient summary: We investigated a range of quality indicators (QIs) that provide health care professionals with feedback on the quality of their care for patients with general urological diseases. We found that aside from urological cancers, there is a lack of QIs for general urology. Hence, there is an urgent need for the development of robust and disease-specific QIs in general urology.
AB - Context: In health care, monitoring of quality indicators (QIs) in general urology remains underdeveloped in comparison to other clinical specialties. Objective: To identify, synthesise, and appraise QIs that monitor in-hospital care for urology patients. Evidence acquisition: This systematic review included peer-reviewed articles identified via Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Global Health, Google Scholar, and grey literature from 2000 to February 19, 2021. The review was carried out under the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool for quality assessment. Evidence synthesis: A total of 5111 articles and 62 government agencies were screened for QI sets. There were a total of 57 QI sets included for analysis. Most QIs focused on uro-oncology, with prostate, bladder, and testicular cancers the most represented. The most common QIs were surgical QIs in uro-oncology (positive surgical margin, surgical volume), whereas in non-oncology the QIs most frequently reported were for treatment and diagnosis. Out of 61 articles, only four scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. Aside from QIs developed in uro-oncology, general urological QIs are underdeveloped and of poor methodological quality and most lack testing for both content validity and reliability. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for the development of methodologically robust QIs in the clinical specialty of general urology for patients to enable standardised quality of care monitoring and to improve patient outcomes. Patient summary: We investigated a range of quality indicators (QIs) that provide health care professionals with feedback on the quality of their care for patients with general urological diseases. We found that aside from urological cancers, there is a lack of QIs for general urology. Hence, there is an urgent need for the development of robust and disease-specific QIs in general urology.
KW - Benign prostatic hyperplasia
KW - Bladder cancer
KW - Prostate cancer
KW - Quality indicators
KW - Quality of care
KW - Testicular cancer
KW - Urinary incontinence
KW - Urinary tract infection
KW - Urology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85146682915&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.004
DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.004
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 36577611
AN - SCOPUS:85146682915
JO - European Urology Focus
JF - European Urology Focus
SN - 2405-4569
ER -
