TABLE 3.

Critical appraisal of home care QIs using the AIRE ²⁵ instrument

AIRE instrument items	Hirdes et al. [26]	Morris et al. [20]	Netten et al. [27]
Domain 1: Purpose, relevance, and organisational context	70%	47%	73%
1.1 The purpose of the indicator is described clearly	4	3	4
1.2 The criteria for selecting the topic of the indicator are described in detail	3	3	2
1.3 The organisational context of the indicator is described in detail	3.5	2	4
1.4 The quality domain the indicator addresses is described in detail	3	2	4
1.5 The health‐care process covered by the indicator is described and defined in detail	2	2	2
Domain 2: Stakeholder involvement	44%	61%	33%
2.1 The group developing the indicator includes individuals from relevant professional groups	3	4	2
2.2 Considering the purpose of the indicator, all relevant stakeholders have been involved at some stage of the development process	3	3.5	2
2.3 The indicator has been formally endorsed	1	1	2
Domain 3: Scientific evidence	6%	0%	22%
3.1 Systematic methods were used to search for scientific evidence	1	1	1
3.2 The indicator is based on recommendations from an evidence‐based guideline	1.5	1	2
3.3 The supporting evidence has been critically appraised	1	1	2
Domain 4: Additional evidence, formulation, and usage	67%	54%	41%
4.1 The numerator and denominator are described in detail	4	4	1
4.2 The target patient population of the indicator is defined clearly	3.5	2	2
4.3 A strategy for risk adjustment has been considered and described	4	4	1
4.4 The indicator measures what it is intended to measure (validity)	2	2	3
4.5 The indicator measures accurately and consistently (reliability)	1	1.5	3
4.6 The indicator has sufficient discriminative power	3.5	3	2
4.7 The indicator has been piloted in practice	1	1	2
4.8 The efforts needed for data collection have been considered	4	4	2
4.9 Specific instructions for presenting and interpreting the indicator results are provided	4	2	4

Abbreviations: AIRE, appraisal of indicators through research and evaluation.