Updating quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan using current clinical practice guidelines: a modified Delphi method. Issue 2 (27th February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ueda, Kayo; Kaso, Misato; Ohtera, Shosuke; Nakayama, Takeo
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 9:Issue 2(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-02-27
• Subjects: quality indicator -- clinical practice guidelines -- update -- modified delphi method -- low-risk labor; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023595
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Quality indicators are measurable elements widely used to assess the quality of care. They are often developed from the results of systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. These sources are regularly updated in line with new clinical evidence, but there are few articles on updating quality indicators based on clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to update the quality indicators developed for low-risk labour care in Japan in 2012, mainly drawing on new or updated clinical practice guidelines, and making the process clearly visible and assessable. Design and setting: We used a modified Delphi method for the update. The procedure included four steps: (1) updating the definition of low-risk labour; (2) reviewing the literature published between June 2012 and December 2015 using five guidelines and two quality indicator databases to extract potential candidate indicators; (3) formation of a multidisciplinary panel including mothers and (4) panel ratings (two rounds between February and April 2016) on the validity of the candidate indicators, and judging the validity of the previous quality indicators drawing on the new evidence. Participants: A multidisciplinary panel of 13 clinicians, including obstetricians, paediatricians and midwives, plus 3 non-clinician mothers. Results: The literature review identified 276 new recommendations from 27 clinical practice guidelines including 2 published in Japan and 21 quality indicators. We developed 13 new candidate indicators from these sources and panel recommendations, 12 of which were approved by the multidisciplinary panel. The panel also accepted all 23 existing quality indicators as still valid, resulting in a total of 35 quality indicators for low-risk labour. Conclusions: We successfully updated the quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan. The procedure developed may be useful for updating other quality indicators based on new clinical practice guidelines.