Table 4.
Methodological assessment of the QI sets with AIRE tool
| AIRE Domain | US | CA | NZ | AU | BE | NL | NO | SE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domain 1: Purpose, relevance and organizational context | ||||||||
| 1.The purpose of the indicator is described clearly | 98% | 96% | 71% | 89% | 93% | 78% | 100% | 87% |
| 2. The criteria for selecting the topic of the indicator are described in detail | ||||||||
| 3.The organizational context of the indicator is described in detail | ||||||||
| 4.The quality domain the indicator addresses is described in detail | ||||||||
| 5.The health-care process covered by the indicator is described and defined in detail | ||||||||
| Domain 2: Stakeholder Involvement | ||||||||
| 6. The group developing the indicator includes individuals from relevant professional groups | 96% | 100% | 93% | 100% | 100% | 74% | 41% | 56% |
| 7. Considering the purpose of the indicator, all relevant stakeholders have been involved at some stage of the development process | ||||||||
| 8. The indicator has been formally endorsed | ||||||||
| Domain 3: Scientific evidence | ||||||||
| 9. Systematic methods were used to search for scientific evidence | 0–7% | 11–33% | 0% | 52–56% | 0–26% | 0–15% | 4% | 0–7% |
| 10. The indicator is based on recommendations from an evidence-based guideline or studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals | ||||||||
| 11. The supporting evidence has been critically appraised | ||||||||
| Domain 4: Additional evidence, formulation and usage | ||||||||
| 12. The numerator and denominator are described in detail | 44–68% | 33–60% | 33–52% | 52–58% | 38–39% | 18–32% | 31–32% | 30–41% |
| 13. The target patient population of the indicator is defined clearly | ||||||||
| 14. A strategy for risk adjustment has been considered and described | ||||||||
| 15. The indicator measures what it is intended to measure | ||||||||
| 16. The indicator measures accurately and consistently | ||||||||
| 17. The indicator has sufficient discriminative power | ||||||||
| 18. The indicator has been piloted in practice | ||||||||
| 19. The efforts needed for data collection have been considered | ||||||||
| 20. Specific instructions for presenting and interpreting the indicator results are provided | ||||||||
The percentages are standardized scores per domain (range 0–100%). A higher score indicates a higher methodological quality. Domain 1 and domain 2 were evaluated by set (i.e., the evaluation was made for the whole set of QIs from the country). In the domains 3 and 4 each QI was evaluated separately and a range is reported. Detailed evaluation is reported in Additional file 3. Item description follows Kieft et al. [96] and Wagner et al. [18]
Abbreviations US United States, CA Canada, NZ New Zealand, AU Australia, BE Belgium, NL Netherlands, NO Norway, SE Sweden