CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Dialysis and Renal Disease ManagementHealthcare Quality and ManagementDelphi Technique in Research

Variations and characteristics of quality indicators for maintenance hemodialysis patients: A systematic review

Open access
Niihata, Kakuya, Shimizu, Sayaka, Tsujimoto, Yasushi, Ikenoue, Tatsuyoshi, Fukuhara, Shunichi, Fukuma, Shingo·2018·Health Science Reports
DOI 10.1002/hsr2.89PMC PMC6242363
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aims: Several quality indicators (QIs) to improve the quality of practice for hemodialysis patients have been implemented. However, the variations and characteristics of these indicators in terms of their use and feasibility have not been investigated. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the variations and characteristics of existing QIs for maintenance hemodialysis patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, without date limits, on February 26, 2016. We selected the English‐written articles regarding QIs for patients aged ≥18 years who were on maintenance hemodialysis therapy ≥3 months, and extracted the definition and development process of the reported QIs. We categorized each indicator into one of four types, namely, structure, process, surrogate outcome, and outcome, and assessed the data sources that were necessary to measure it. Results: We included 70 articles and identified 101 indicators, and found that most of the consensus processes for selecting indicators were unclear. We also found that most indicators were not process indicators and that the measurement of some indicators required a chart review, which limits their use and feasibility. Conclusions: Development of QIs for hemodialysis patients in the future should use a definitive consensus process and consider process‐centered indicators that can be measured automatically using claims data and test results contained in electronic medical records, to improve usability and feasibility.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hsr2.89

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Process indicators refer to the process that patients undergo or that nurses specifically implement, which can reflect the specific activities required in the provision of medical services.

    “Process indicators refer to the process that patients undergo or that nurses specifically implement, which can reflect the specific activities required in the provision of medical services (Niihata et al., 2018).”

    From Construction of haemodialysis nursing‐sensitive quality indicators based on Donabedian theory: A Delphi method study (2023) · cites this paper as Niihata et al., 2018

    The Data extraction section defines process indicators as activities modifiable by health care professionals, giving blood tests and noninvasive procedures as examples. The Discussion says they detect changes in practice. This supports the claim’s general description of care activities, but the paper does not define them specifically by what patients undergo or nurses implement; it also specifies that they do not depend on the patient’s condition. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. [1]Pisoni RL, Young EW, Dykstra DM, et al. Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int. 2002 Jan; 61(1): 305‐ 316. 11786113
  2. [2]Pisoni RL, Zepel L, Port FK, Robinson BM. Trends in US vascular access use, patient preferences, and related practices: an update from the US DOPPS practice monitor with international comparisons. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Jun; 65(6): 905‐ 915. 25662834
  3. [3]Tentori F, Zepel L, Fuller DS, et al. The DOPPS practice monitor for US Dialysis care: PTH levels and management of mineral and bone disorder in US hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Sep; 66(3): 536‐ 539. 26300197 PMC5436274
  4. [4]Wong MM, McCullough KP, Bieber BA, et al. Interdialytic weight gain: trends, predictors, and associated outcomes in the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis. 2017 Mar; 69(3): 367‐ 379. 27866963
  5. [5]Bailie GR, Larkina M, Goodkin DA, et al. Variation in intravenous iron use internationally and over time: the dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Oct; 28(10): 2570‐ 2579. 24078642
  6. [6]Ethier J, Mendelssohn DC, Elder SJ, et al. Vascular access use and outcomes: an international perspective from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008 Oct; 23(10): 3219‐ 3226. 18511606 PMC2542410
  7. [7]Tentori F, Wang M, Bieber BA, et al. Recent changes in therapeutic approaches and association with outcomes among patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism on chronic hemodialysis: the DOPPS study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015 Jan; 10(1): 98‐ 109. 25516917 PMC4284424
  8. [8]Chassin MR, Loeb JM, Schmaltz SP, Wachter RM. Accountability measures—using measurement to promote quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug; 363(7): 683‐ 688. 20573915
  9. [9]Fishbane S, Miller I, Wagner JD, Masani NN. Changes to the end‐stage renal disease quality incentive program. Kidney Int. 2012 Jun; 81(12): 1167‐ 1171. 22534963
  10. [10]Rocco MV, Frankenfield DL, Hopson SD, McClellan WM. Relationship between clinical performance measures and outcomes among patients receiving long‐term hemodialysis. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct; 145(7): 512‐ 549. 17015869
  11. [11]Thompson S, Bello A, Wiebe N, et al. Quality‐of‐care indicators among remote‐dwelling hemodialysis patients: a cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013 Aug; 62(2): 295‐ 303. 23518196
  12. [12]Lacson E, Xu J, Lin S‐F, Dean SG, Lazarus JM, Hakim R. Association between achievement of hemodialysis quality‐of‐care indicators and quality‐of‐life scores. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009 Dec; 54(6): 1098‐ 1107. 19782455
  13. [13]Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988 Sep; 260(12): 1743‐ 1748. 3045356
  14. [14]van der Veer SN, Van Biesen W, Couchoud C, Tomson CR, Jager KJ. Measuring the quality of renal care: things to keep in mind when selecting and using quality indicators. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014 Aug; 29(8): 1460‐ 1467. 24286978
  15. [15]Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011; 6(6): e20476. 21694759 PMC3111406
  16. [16]Pasman HRW, Brandt HE, Deliens L, Francke AL. Quality indicators for palliative care: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2009 Jul; 38(1): 145‐ 156. 19615636
  17. [17]Stelfox HT, Bobranska‐Artiuch B, Nathens A, Straus SE. A systematic review of quality indicators for evaluating pediatric trauma care. Crit Care Med. 2010 Apr; 38(4): 1187‐ 1196. 20154596
  18. [18]Haller G, Stoelwinder J, Myles PS, McNeil J. Quality and safety indicators in anesthesia: a systematic review. Anesthesiology. 2009 May; 110(5): 1158‐ 1175. 19352148
  19. [19]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug; 151(4): 264‐ 269. W64 21603045 PMC3090117
  20. [21]Richards N, Ayala JA, Cesare S, et al. Assessment of quality guidelines implementation using a continuous quality improvement programme. Blood Purif. 2007; 25(3): 221‐ 228. 17377376
  21. [22]Benner D, Hollister D, Mcallister CJ, Thiry K. The DaVita Quality Index (DQI): a measure of clinical performance. Dial Transplant. 2003; 32(5): 269‐ 273.
  22. [23]KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Hemodialysis: 2015 Update|National Kidney Foundation [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jul 17]. Available from: https://www.kidney.org/professionals/guidelines/hemodialysis2015 26498416
  23. [26]Kötter T, Blozik E, Scherer M. Methods for the guideline‐based development of quality indicators‐‐a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2012 Mar; 7(1): 21. 22436067 PMC3368783
  24. [27]Sugarman JR, Frederick PR, Frankenfield DL, Owen WF, McClellan WM, Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guidelines. Developing clinical performance measures based on the Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guidelines: process, outcomes, and implications. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003 Oct; 42(4): 806‐ 812. 14520632
  25. [28]Usvyat LA, Haviv YS, Etter M, et al. The MONitoring dialysis outcomes (MONDO) initiative. Blood Purif. 2013; 35(1–3): 37‐ 48. 23343545
  26. [29]van der Veer SN, Jager KJ, Nache AM, et al. Translating knowledge on best practice into improving quality of RRT care: a systematic review of implementation strategies. Kidney Int. 2011 Nov; 80(10): 1021‐ 1034. 21775971
  27. [30]Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008 Feb; 22(2): 338‐ 342. 17884971

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Niihata, K., Shimizu, S., Tsujimoto, Y., Ikenoue, T., Fukuhara, S., & Fukuma, S.
Affiliations
  • Fukushima Medical University (JP)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
Corresponding author
Fukuma, Shingo
ORCID
Venue
Health Science Reports
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-09-05
Volume
1
Issue
11
Pages
e89-e89
ISSN
2398-8835 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/hsr2.89
PMC
PMC6242363
OpenAlex
W2891643887
Cited by
12
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health Science Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • JPSS KAKENHI (23390130)
  • “SPIRITS” (Supporting Program for Interaction-based Initiative Team Studies) 2018 of Kyoto University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
quality indicators, maintenance hemodialysis, end-stage renal disease, indicator development, consensus building, feasibility, electronic health records, claims data, quality of care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review