Table 3 Processes used to identify quality indicators
From: Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review
Author(s) and year | Domains of health or healthcare included | Consensus/ expert consultation process | Sources of indicators | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | Number of indicators | Benchmarking / performance targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wright (2005) | Substance abuse and mental health | Yes | Association of State Correctional Administrators subcommittee | • Detailed • Valid • Allows for comparison/ is applicable across different organisations • Manageable number | Not explicitly stated | 2 | • Benchmarking requires inter-agency performance partnerships • Rates per population unit rather than numbers provided to enable cross-agency comparison • Clearly defined numerators and denominators with counting guidance should be provided |
Stone et al. (2006) | Healthcare delivery areas: • Acute • Subacute • Ambulatory • Behavioural health • Nursing/assisted living • Rehabilitation • Hospice care Health categories: • Women’s health • Heart disease • Infectious disease • Pulmonary disease • Wellness and prevention • Asthma • Diabetes • Medication administration • Screening • Behavioural health | Yes | 4 US national public and private agency guidelines including prison-specific and community guidelines | • Relevant to health needs of the prison population • Addressed the range of care services in the correctional system • Addresses health issues that are amenable to change • Evidence-based • Relevant to specific organisational goals/ policy directives • Has available and reliable data, analysable at different levels e.g. organisation, gender, age etc. • Contributes to balanced coherent set of measures | • Indicators requiring intensive data collection • Indicators with sporadic / unreliable data • Indicators reliant on subjective judgements • Community indicators that could not be modified for a prison population | 32 | • Benchmarks selected on available data for most comparable community population |
Hoge et al. (2009) | Mental health: • Medication adherence • Monitoring for side effects and toxicity • Suicide prevention • Treatment planning • Sleep medication | Yes | Unspecified number of prison- and condition-specific guidelines | • Meaningful • Must be quantitative to allow for analysis of longitudinal trends • Based on nationally accepted standards | Not explicitly stated | 26 | Not explicitly stated |
Asch et al. (2011) | • Access • Cardiac conditions • Geriatrics • Infectious diseases • Medication monitoring • Metabolic diseases • Obstetrics/gynecology • Screening/prevention • Psychiatric disorders/ substance abuse • Pulmonary conditions • Urgent conditions | Yes | 29 national and international prison- and condition-specific guidelines | Content reviewer criteria: • Importance • Scientific soundness • Implementability • Interpretability Panellist criteria (0–9 scale, median score used): a) Validity • Soundness of evidence • Identifiable health benefits • Compliance would indicate high quality provision • Compliance is under control of prison healthcare b) Feasibility • Data can be readily extracted • Reliable, unbiased, consistent data • Failure to document data is an indicator of poor quality | • Inpatient/ specialist care because not under control of prison healthcare • Indicators scoring < 7 on validity and < 4 on feasibility | 79 | Not explicitly stated |
Greifinger (2012) | • Suicide screening • Health assessments • Urgent care • Obstetrics/ gynaecology • Infectious disease • Medication administration and continuity • Access to care • Chronic disease care • Anticoagulant medication • Side-effect monitoring • Transfer planning • Dental care • Credentialing • Grievance reporting • Inclusivity | No | Unspecified number of international, national prison- and condition-specific guidelines and guidelines produced by independent authors | • Potential to improve patient safety through reducing risk of harm • Focus on areas where most serious harm could be caused through non-adherence to the measure • Quantitative measures allowing comparative analysis | • Outcome measurement such as rates of mortality and preventable infections because difficult to provide meaningful measurement in small populations | 30 (with sub-items) | • Expected performance measure 90%, although some measures should be 100% • Comparative analysis of facilities identifies areas for improvement |
Watts (2015) |  | Yes (though limited detail) | Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set metrics (HEDIS®, developed by the National Committee for Quality Assurance), the indicators listed in Teleki et al. (Teleki et al., 2011), and Vermont DOC’s reporting requirements | • HEDIS® measures that could be adapted for the prison setting • Improvement in people’s health status given more priority than care processes in results-based accountability • Focus on chronic care management | Not explicitly stated | 53 | • More robust health record data set was required to interface correctional data with community data enabling comparative analysis and continuity of care • Pay-for-performance contract set expected performance at 85% in first year, rising by 5% in the second and third years |