Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:The relevance, feasibility and benchmarking of nursing quality indicators: A Delphi study

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range; NSI, nursing-sensitive indicator. *Physicians, People from the Professional Association for Nursing (SBK) and National Association for Quality Development in Hospitals and Clinics (ANQ) TABLE 3 Characteristics of panellists

Table 3 Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range; NSI, nursing-sensitive indicator. *Physicians, People from the Professional Association for Nursing (SBK) and National Association for Quality Development in Hospitals and Clinics (ANQ) TABLE 3 Characteristics of panellists

Related Figures (5)

TABLE 1. The indicator set for round 1
TABLE 1. The indicator set for round 1
TABLE 2 The three main categories for assessing the indicators (adopted by C. A. Dubois et al., 2017) the comprehensibility and completeness. The participants had the opportunity to suggest further indicators. of their right to decline to provide specific information or to ter- minate participation at any stage of the study without detriment and that they would not be identifiable in any reports or publi- cations. However, as the researcher knew the origin of individual responses, it was not possible to maintain total anonymity during the study.
TABLE 2 The three main categories for assessing the indicators (adopted by C. A. Dubois et al., 2017) the comprehensibility and completeness. The participants had the opportunity to suggest further indicators. of their right to decline to provide specific information or to ter- minate participation at any stage of the study without detriment and that they would not be identifiable in any reports or publi- cations. However, as the researcher knew the origin of individual responses, it was not possible to maintain total anonymity during the study.
*1-3 rating scale used. >Indicator adopted from C. A. Dubois et al. (2017). “Indicator recommended in pretest. 4indicator recommended by panellists. TABLE 4 Round two scores obtained for 21 indicators using three prioritization criteria presented in order of highest total score
*1-3 rating scale used. >Indicator adopted from C. A. Dubois et al. (2017). “Indicator recommended in pretest. 4indicator recommended by panellists. TABLE 4 Round two scores obtained for 21 indicators using three prioritization criteria presented in order of highest total score
FIGURE 2 Overview of indicators achieving consensus in the second round (indicators in order of highest consensus in the respective main category). *Mortality (in hospital) and length of hospitals stay have reached consensus on high feasibility but not on relevance and are therefore not listed here
FIGURE 2 Overview of indicators achieving consensus in the second round (indicators in order of highest consensus in the respective main category). *Mortality (in hospital) and length of hospitals stay have reached consensus on high feasibility but not on relevance and are therefore not listed here