Aim for database: Aim of the Danish database for acute and emergency hospital contacts (DDAEHC) i... more Aim for database: Aim of the Danish database for acute and emergency hospital contacts (DDAEHC) is to monitor the quality of care for all unplanned hospital contacts in Denmark (acute and emergency contacts). Study population: The DDAEHC is a nationwide registry that completely covers all acute and emergency somatic hospital visits at individual level regardless of presentation site, presenting complaint, and department designation since January 1, 2013. Main variables: The DDAEHC includes ten quality indicators-of which two are outcome indicators and eight are process indicators. Variables used to compute these indicators include among others day and time of hospital contact, vital status, ST-elevation myocardial infarction diagnosis, date and time of relevant procedure (percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary angiography, X-ray of wrist, and gastrointestinal surgery) as well as time for triage and physician judgment. Data are currently gathered from The Danish National Patient Registry, two existing databases (Danish Stroke Register and Danish Database for Emergency Surgery), and will eventually include data from the local and regional clinical logistic systems. Descriptive data: The DDAEHC also includes age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index conditions, civil status, residency, and discharge diagnoses. The DDAEHC expects to include 1.7 million acute and emergency contacts per year. Conclusion: The DDAEHC is a new database established by the Danish Regions including all acute and emergency hospital contacts in Denmark. The database includes specific outcome and process health care quality indicators as well as demographic and other basic information with the purpose to be used for enhancement of quality of acute care.
Background: In 2013, Danish policy-makers on a nationwide level decided to set up a national qual... more Background: In 2013, Danish policy-makers on a nationwide level decided to set up a national quality of care database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark including the selection of quality indicators. The aim of the study was to describe the Delphi process that contributed to the selection of quality indicators for a new national database of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. Methods: The process comprised a literature review followed by a modified-Delphi survey process, involving a panel of 54 experts (senior clinicians, researchers and administrators from the emergency area and collaborating specialties). Based on the literature review, we identified 43 potential indicators, of which eight were time-critical conditions. We then consulted the Expert panel in two consecutive rounds. The Expert panel was asked to what extent each indicator would be a good measure of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. In each round, the Expert panel participants scored each indicator on a Likert scale ranging from one (=disagree completely) through to six (=agree completely). Consensus for a quality indicator was reached if the median was greater than or equal to five (=agree). The Delphi process was followed by final selection by the steering group for the new database. Results: Following round two of the Expert panel, consensus was reached on 32 quality indicators, including three time-critical conditions. Subsequently, the database steering group chose a set of nine quality indicators for the initial version of the national database for hospital-based emergency care. Conclusions: The two-round modified Delphi process contributed to the selection of an initial set of nine quality indicators for a new a national database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. Final selection was made by the database steering group informed by the Delphi process.
Aim for database: Aim of the Danish database for acute and emergency hospital contacts (DDAEHC) i... more Aim for database: Aim of the Danish database for acute and emergency hospital contacts (DDAEHC) is to monitor the quality of care for all unplanned hospital contacts in Denmark (acute and emergency contacts). Study population: The DDAEHC is a nationwide registry that completely covers all acute and emergency somatic hospital visits at individual level regardless of presentation site, presenting complaint, and department designation since January 1, 2013. Main variables: The DDAEHC includes ten quality indicators-of which two are outcome indicators and eight are process indicators. Variables used to compute these indicators include among others day and time of hospital contact, vital status, ST-elevation myocardial infarction diagnosis, date and time of relevant procedure (percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary angiography, X-ray of wrist, and gastrointestinal surgery) as well as time for triage and physician judgment. Data are currently gathered from The Danish National Patient Registry, two existing databases (Danish Stroke Register and Danish Database for Emergency Surgery), and will eventually include data from the local and regional clinical logistic systems. Descriptive data: The DDAEHC also includes age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index conditions, civil status, residency, and discharge diagnoses. The DDAEHC expects to include 1.7 million acute and emergency contacts per year. Conclusion: The DDAEHC is a new database established by the Danish Regions including all acute and emergency hospital contacts in Denmark. The database includes specific outcome and process health care quality indicators as well as demographic and other basic information with the purpose to be used for enhancement of quality of acute care.
Background: In 2013, Danish policy-makers on a nationwide level decided to set up a national qual... more Background: In 2013, Danish policy-makers on a nationwide level decided to set up a national quality of care database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark including the selection of quality indicators. The aim of the study was to describe the Delphi process that contributed to the selection of quality indicators for a new national database of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. Methods: The process comprised a literature review followed by a modified-Delphi survey process, involving a panel of 54 experts (senior clinicians, researchers and administrators from the emergency area and collaborating specialties). Based on the literature review, we identified 43 potential indicators, of which eight were time-critical conditions. We then consulted the Expert panel in two consecutive rounds. The Expert panel was asked to what extent each indicator would be a good measure of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. In each round, the Expert panel participants scored each indicator on a Likert scale ranging from one (=disagree completely) through to six (=agree completely). Consensus for a quality indicator was reached if the median was greater than or equal to five (=agree). The Delphi process was followed by final selection by the steering group for the new database. Results: Following round two of the Expert panel, consensus was reached on 32 quality indicators, including three time-critical conditions. Subsequently, the database steering group chose a set of nine quality indicators for the initial version of the national database for hospital-based emergency care. Conclusions: The two-round modified Delphi process contributed to the selection of an initial set of nine quality indicators for a new a national database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. Final selection was made by the database steering group informed by the Delphi process.
Uploads
Papers by Annette Odby
database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark including the selection of quality indicators. The aim of
the study was to describe the Delphi process that contributed to the selection of quality indicators for a new
national database of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark.
Methods: The process comprised a literature review followed by a modified-Delphi survey process, involving a
panel of 54 experts (senior clinicians, researchers and administrators from the emergency area and collaborating
specialties). Based on the literature review, we identified 43 potential indicators, of which eight were time-critical
conditions. We then consulted the Expert panel in two consecutive rounds. The Expert panel was asked to what
extent each indicator would be a good measure of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. In each round, the
Expert panel participants scored each indicator on a Likert scale ranging from one (=disagree completely) through
to six (=agree completely). Consensus for a quality indicator was reached if the median was greater than or equal
to five (=agree). The Delphi process was followed by final selection by the steering group for the new database.
Results: Following round two of the Expert panel, consensus was reached on 32 quality indicators, including three
time-critical conditions. Subsequently, the database steering group chose a set of nine quality indicators for the
initial version of the national database for hospital-based emergency care.
Conclusions: The two-round modified Delphi process contributed to the selection of an initial set of nine quality
indicators for a new a national database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. Final selection was made
by the database steering group informed by the Delphi process.
database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark including the selection of quality indicators. The aim of
the study was to describe the Delphi process that contributed to the selection of quality indicators for a new
national database of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark.
Methods: The process comprised a literature review followed by a modified-Delphi survey process, involving a
panel of 54 experts (senior clinicians, researchers and administrators from the emergency area and collaborating
specialties). Based on the literature review, we identified 43 potential indicators, of which eight were time-critical
conditions. We then consulted the Expert panel in two consecutive rounds. The Expert panel was asked to what
extent each indicator would be a good measure of hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. In each round, the
Expert panel participants scored each indicator on a Likert scale ranging from one (=disagree completely) through
to six (=agree completely). Consensus for a quality indicator was reached if the median was greater than or equal
to five (=agree). The Delphi process was followed by final selection by the steering group for the new database.
Results: Following round two of the Expert panel, consensus was reached on 32 quality indicators, including three
time-critical conditions. Subsequently, the database steering group chose a set of nine quality indicators for the
initial version of the national database for hospital-based emergency care.
Conclusions: The two-round modified Delphi process contributed to the selection of an initial set of nine quality
indicators for a new a national database for hospital-based emergency care in Denmark. Final selection was made
by the database steering group informed by the Delphi process.