Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement
Abstract
Objective This paper provides a brief review of definitions, characteristics, and categories of clinical indicators for quality improvement in health care. Analysis Clinical indicators assess particular health structures, processes, and outcomes. They can be rate- or mean-based, providing a quantitative basis for quality improvement, or sentinel, identifying incidents of care that trigger further investigation. They can assess aspects of the structure, process, or outcome of health care. Furthermore, indicators can be generic measures that are relevant for most patients or disease-specific, expressing the quality of care for patients with specific diagnoses. Conclusions Monitoring health care quality is impossible without the use of clinical indicators. They create the basis for quality improvement and prioritization in the health care system. To ensure that reliable and valid clinical indicators are used, they must be designed, defined, and implemented with scientific rigour.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Mainz (2003) and Santalahti et al. (2020) highlighted issues such as nonavailability of medicine, lack of basic diagnostic facilities, and gross differentiation among providers in care for similar illnesses.
“These findings align with studies conducted by Mainz (2003)[41] and Santalahti et al. (2020),[38] who highlighted issues such as nonavailability of medicine, lack of basic diagnostic facilities, and gross differentiation among providers in care for similar illnesses.[42]”
From Identifying the accessibility barriers for chronic disease management in health care delivery system amongst the Urban Poor of Kolkata, West Bengal, India (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
Cites
Evaluating the quality of medical care
DONABEDIAN, A. (2005) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x · Cited by 6,102 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boulkedid, R., Abdoul, H., Loustau, M., Sibony, O., & Alberti, C. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020476 · Cited by 2,045 · see citing works
Performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases of laboratory testing: Why and how
Plebani, M. (2017) · Clinical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.02.002 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Roy, P., & Bardhan, M. (2025) · Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care · doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1050_24 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mainz, J.
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-12-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 523-530
- ISSN
- 1353-4505
- 1464-3677
- Cited by
- 823
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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