Health System Quality and Performance Indicators for Evaluating Home Care Programming: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic scoping review of health system Performance and Quality Indicators (PQI) related literature for evaluating publicly funded home care programming was conducted. Through the scoping review we identify PQIs, map these based on quadrants of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s (IHI) Quadruple Aim, classify these PQIs under general “areas of focus” categories, and present recommendations for use. We selected all articles that identified, referenced, proposed, and/or described at least 1 PQI to measure home care service programming. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of 1 or more PQIs designed to evaluate and/or measure home care programming, outcomes of home care clients and/or caregivers, or overall system impacts of home care service provision. The review identified 3,475 citations. A review of the abstracts led to the retrieval of 510 full-text articles for assessment of which 105 articles were selected for detailed review and extraction of identified PQIs. Of the 105 identified articles a total of 829 unique PQIs were gathered. Based on the IHI Quadruple Aim, 661 unique measures were identified as Clinical Outcome, 35 as Healthcare Provider Satisfaction, 99 Patient Experience, and 34 in the Financial/Sustainability quadrants. Many patient outcome specific PQIs exist, followed by patient experience measures. Very few PQIs exist in the financial or healthcare provider experience quadrants. The lack of indicators across all the IHI Quadruple Aim quadrants is an opportunity for further development supporting home care quality oversight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.078 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".