Assessing and comparing the quality of wound centres: a literature review and benchmarking pilot

Lotte Pruim, Anke Wind, Wim H. van Harten*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Multidisciplinary wound centres are currently facing an increase in both the incidence of wounds and the complexity of care. This has resulted in rising costs and increased interest in the effectiveness of treatments. Little evidence is available regarding optimal wound centre organisation and effectiveness; therefore, measuring the quality of wound centres has become more important. This study aims to assess the evidence concerning quality by describing the state of the art of wound centres and organisational effectiveness by developing indicators of quality and by assessing their suitability in a pilot study. A multi-method approach was used: a literature review performed resulted in the development of an indicator list that was consequently subjected to expert review, and a benchmark study was completed comparing eight wound centres in the Netherlands. We thus provide a description of the relevant state-of-the-art aspects of wound centre organisation, which were multidisciplinary collaborations and standardisation of the organisation of care. In literature, significant patient-related effects were observed in improved healing rates and decreased costs. A total of 48 indicators were selected. The indicator list was tested by a benchmark study pilot. In practice, the outcome indicators were especially difficult to generate. Six indicators regarding structure, three regarding process and five regarding outcome proved feasible to measure and improve quality of wound centres.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1120-1136
Number of pages17
JournalInternational Wound Journal
Volume14
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2017

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Wounds and Injuries
Organizations
Costs and Cost Analysis
Netherlands
Incidence

Keywords

  • Benchmark
  • Effectiveness
  • Literature review
  • Multidisciplinary
  • Organisation
  • Wound care

Cite this

@article{518ba16d1f8342f3b53a89b571141545,
title = "Assessing and comparing the quality of wound centres: a literature review and benchmarking pilot",
abstract = "Multidisciplinary wound centres are currently facing an increase in both the incidence of wounds and the complexity of care. This has resulted in rising costs and increased interest in the effectiveness of treatments. Little evidence is available regarding optimal wound centre organisation and effectiveness; therefore, measuring the quality of wound centres has become more important. This study aims to assess the evidence concerning quality by describing the state of the art of wound centres and organisational effectiveness by developing indicators of quality and by assessing their suitability in a pilot study. A multi-method approach was used: a literature review performed resulted in the development of an indicator list that was consequently subjected to expert review, and a benchmark study was completed comparing eight wound centres in the Netherlands. We thus provide a description of the relevant state-of-the-art aspects of wound centre organisation, which were multidisciplinary collaborations and standardisation of the organisation of care. In literature, significant patient-related effects were observed in improved healing rates and decreased costs. A total of 48 indicators were selected. The indicator list was tested by a benchmark study pilot. In practice, the outcome indicators were especially difficult to generate. Six indicators regarding structure, three regarding process and five regarding outcome proved feasible to measure and improve quality of wound centres.",
keywords = "Benchmark, Effectiveness, Literature review, Multidisciplinary, Organisation, Wound care",
author = "Lotte Pruim and Anke Wind and {van Harten}, {Wim H.}",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/iwj.12768",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "1120--1136",
journal = "International Wound Journal",
issn = "1742-4801",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

Assessing and comparing the quality of wound centres : a literature review and benchmarking pilot. / Pruim, Lotte; Wind, Anke; van Harten, Wim H.

In: International Wound Journal, Vol. 14, No. 6, 01.12.2017, p. 1120-1136.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing and comparing the quality of wound centres

T2 - a literature review and benchmarking pilot

AU - Pruim, Lotte

AU - Wind, Anke

AU - van Harten, Wim H.

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Multidisciplinary wound centres are currently facing an increase in both the incidence of wounds and the complexity of care. This has resulted in rising costs and increased interest in the effectiveness of treatments. Little evidence is available regarding optimal wound centre organisation and effectiveness; therefore, measuring the quality of wound centres has become more important. This study aims to assess the evidence concerning quality by describing the state of the art of wound centres and organisational effectiveness by developing indicators of quality and by assessing their suitability in a pilot study. A multi-method approach was used: a literature review performed resulted in the development of an indicator list that was consequently subjected to expert review, and a benchmark study was completed comparing eight wound centres in the Netherlands. We thus provide a description of the relevant state-of-the-art aspects of wound centre organisation, which were multidisciplinary collaborations and standardisation of the organisation of care. In literature, significant patient-related effects were observed in improved healing rates and decreased costs. A total of 48 indicators were selected. The indicator list was tested by a benchmark study pilot. In practice, the outcome indicators were especially difficult to generate. Six indicators regarding structure, three regarding process and five regarding outcome proved feasible to measure and improve quality of wound centres.

AB - Multidisciplinary wound centres are currently facing an increase in both the incidence of wounds and the complexity of care. This has resulted in rising costs and increased interest in the effectiveness of treatments. Little evidence is available regarding optimal wound centre organisation and effectiveness; therefore, measuring the quality of wound centres has become more important. This study aims to assess the evidence concerning quality by describing the state of the art of wound centres and organisational effectiveness by developing indicators of quality and by assessing their suitability in a pilot study. A multi-method approach was used: a literature review performed resulted in the development of an indicator list that was consequently subjected to expert review, and a benchmark study was completed comparing eight wound centres in the Netherlands. We thus provide a description of the relevant state-of-the-art aspects of wound centre organisation, which were multidisciplinary collaborations and standardisation of the organisation of care. In literature, significant patient-related effects were observed in improved healing rates and decreased costs. A total of 48 indicators were selected. The indicator list was tested by a benchmark study pilot. In practice, the outcome indicators were especially difficult to generate. Six indicators regarding structure, three regarding process and five regarding outcome proved feasible to measure and improve quality of wound centres.

KW - Benchmark

KW - Effectiveness

KW - Literature review

KW - Multidisciplinary

KW - Organisation

KW - Wound care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020444530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/iwj.12768

DO - 10.1111/iwj.12768

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85020444530

VL - 14

SP - 1120

EP - 1136

JO - International Wound Journal

JF - International Wound Journal

SN - 1742-4801

IS - 6

ER -