English | Français  

Home

Project Results

What is a Quality Measure?

Who is CEQM?

National Consensus

National Consensus Summary

Top 30 Quality Measures

Quality Measures Database

Priority Domains

Data Infrastructure

Measurement Implementation

Knowledge Transfer / Communication

Project Activities

Contact

Links



Staff/Partner log-in
  

Quality Measures Database

Detailed Results


Use checkboxes to select measures to print or display              
Use of Treatment Plans Overall Rank: 72
Percentage of all patients with a comprehensive and current treatment plan on the health record with major review occurring no less frequently than at 6 month intervals.
Patient-centeredness refers to establishing a partnership among practitioners, patients and their families (when appropriate) to ensure that decisions respect patients’ wants, needs and preferences. This includes ensuring that patients have the education and support they need to make their own decisions and participate in their own care.
Additional Domain(s) : Quality and Safety, Continuity
Rationale
a) Effective Practice (what is the practice that you wish to measure?): Involvement of the patient and family in treatment decisions including education of patient about illness and treatments, awareness of available community resources, and assessing family burden, as well as assurance of confidentiality.
b) Purpose of Measurement (what do you wish to measure: implementation of the practice, or patient outcome?): Implementation.
Primary Reference
Stage 2 Expert Survey
Level of Evidence
III: Preliminary research evidence only or evidence based on consensus opinion only.

Summarized CommentsAdd Comment
  • This is important, but not necessarily indicative of patient centeredness. To be patient centered, the treatment plan and review must include the patient and family.
  • *Yes, for those with chronic problems.
  • This would be more workable at 2 year intervals.
  • This doesn't tell us anything about patient-centeredness or partnership or the extent to which patient was involved in treatment discussions!
Variation in Results
Ratings-based Rank
Relevance 79
Actionability 76
Overall Importance 58
 
Stakeholder Rank
Academics 59
Clinicians 75
Consumers 79
Decision Makers 74
 
Special Group Rank
First Nations 87
Rural Areas 74
Federal Stakeholders 35
Regional Rank
BC AB SK MB ON QC NB NS PE NL YT NT NU
46 60 124 98 29 75 13 73 64 115 127 45 82
 
Overall Rank

      

72


SW05d (H630)

 
Distribution of Survey Respondent Ratings
Relevance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.88 1.6 0.42 3.05 9.3 22.55 44.22 17.97
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Actionability
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.35 2.92 0.42 1.49 7.01 15.48 30.85 25.63 15.86
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Overall Importance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2.62 30.71 66.67
3 2 1

3 = can live without
2 = nice to have
1 = indispensable
Use checkboxes to select measures to print or display              

Copyright © 2006 CEQM and CARMHA • infoceqm-acmq.com

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official policies of Health Canada