Quality indicators and performance measures for prison healthcare: a scoping review.
Correctional healthcare
Performance measurement
Prison healthcare
Quality indicators
Quality of prison healthcare
Journal
Health & justice
ISSN: 2194-7899
Titre abrégé: Health Justice
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101626355
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Mar 2022
07 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
01
07
2021
accepted:
20
02
2022
entrez:
8
3
2022
pubmed:
9
3
2022
medline:
9
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Internationally, people in prison should receive a standard of healthcare provision equivalent to people living in the community. Yet efforts to assess the quality of healthcare through the use of quality indicators or performance measures have been much more widely reported in the community than in the prison setting. This review aims to provide an overview of research undertaken to develop quality indicators suitable for prison healthcare. An international scoping review of articles published in English was conducted between 2004 and 2021. Searches of six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, PsycInfo and Criminal Justice Abstracts) were supplemented with journal searches, author searches and forwards and backwards citation tracking. Twelve articles were included in the review, all of which were from the United States. Quality indicator selection processes varied in rigour, and there was no evidence of patient involvement in consultation activities. Selected indicators predominantly measured healthcare processes rather than health outcomes or healthcare structure. Difficulties identified in developing performance measures for the prison setting included resource constraints, data system functionality, and the comparability of the prison population to the non-incarcerated population. Selecting performance measures for healthcare that are evidence-based, relevant to the population and feasible requires rigorous and transparent processes. Balanced sets of indicators for prison healthcare need to reflect prison population trends, be operable within data systems and be aligned with equivalence principles. More effort needs to be made to meaningfully engage people with lived experience in stakeholder consultations on prison healthcare quality. Monitoring healthcare structure, processes and outcomes in prison settings will provide evidence to improve care quality with the aim of reducing health inequalities experienced by people living in prison.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Internationally, people in prison should receive a standard of healthcare provision equivalent to people living in the community. Yet efforts to assess the quality of healthcare through the use of quality indicators or performance measures have been much more widely reported in the community than in the prison setting. This review aims to provide an overview of research undertaken to develop quality indicators suitable for prison healthcare.
METHODS
METHODS
An international scoping review of articles published in English was conducted between 2004 and 2021. Searches of six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, PsycInfo and Criminal Justice Abstracts) were supplemented with journal searches, author searches and forwards and backwards citation tracking.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twelve articles were included in the review, all of which were from the United States. Quality indicator selection processes varied in rigour, and there was no evidence of patient involvement in consultation activities. Selected indicators predominantly measured healthcare processes rather than health outcomes or healthcare structure. Difficulties identified in developing performance measures for the prison setting included resource constraints, data system functionality, and the comparability of the prison population to the non-incarcerated population.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Selecting performance measures for healthcare that are evidence-based, relevant to the population and feasible requires rigorous and transparent processes. Balanced sets of indicators for prison healthcare need to reflect prison population trends, be operable within data systems and be aligned with equivalence principles. More effort needs to be made to meaningfully engage people with lived experience in stakeholder consultations on prison healthcare quality. Monitoring healthcare structure, processes and outcomes in prison settings will provide evidence to improve care quality with the aim of reducing health inequalities experienced by people living in prison.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35257254
doi: 10.1186/s40352-022-00175-9
pii: 10.1186/s40352-022-00175-9
pmc: PMC8902782
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
13Subventions
Organisme : national institute for health research
ID : 17/05/26
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ. 2014 Jun 13;348:g3725
pubmed: 24927763
Am J Public Health. 2009 Apr;99(4):666-72
pubmed: 19150898
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019 Sep;54(9):1143-1152
pubmed: 30903239
Health Justice. 2016;4:4
pubmed: 27077019
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 13;12(7):e0177949
pubmed: 28704407
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Dec;15(6):523-30
pubmed: 14660535
BMC Fam Pract. 2015 Oct 28;16:156
pubmed: 26507739
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016 Mar;43(2):207-18
pubmed: 25663094
J Med Ethics. 2018 Nov;44(11):746-750
pubmed: 30002142
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 21;7:21
pubmed: 22436067
J Correct Health Care. 2011 Apr;17(2):100-21
pubmed: 21525115
Gerontologist. 2013 Aug;53(4):543-54
pubmed: 23042691
J Med Ethics. 2012 Apr;38(4):215-8
pubmed: 21955956
JBI Evid Synth. 2020 Oct;18(10):2119-2126
pubmed: 33038124
J Correct Health Care. 2011 Apr;17(2):122-37
pubmed: 21525116
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Apr 26;22(1):80
pubmed: 33902449
Br J Psychiatry. 2006 Jan;188:4-6
pubmed: 16388062
Br Med Bull. 2018 Mar 1;125(1):15-23
pubmed: 29394343
J Med Ethics. 2007 Oct;33(10):610-3
pubmed: 17906061
Qual Health Care. 1992 Sep;1(3):171-7
pubmed: 10136859
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018 Jul;45(4):623-634
pubmed: 29362981
N Engl J Med. 1973 Jan 25;288(4):189-94
pubmed: 4682231
Int J Prison Health. 2019 Aug 27;16(1):17-28
pubmed: 32040276
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;3(9):871-81
pubmed: 27426440
Dementia (London). 2020 Jul;19(5):1509-1531
pubmed: 30269533
Epidemiol Rev. 2018 Jun 1;40(1):4-11
pubmed: 29860342
Int J Qual Health Care. 2004 Apr;16 Suppl 1:i5-9
pubmed: 15059982
Int J Prison Health. 2012;8(3-4):141-50
pubmed: 25758148
JAMA. 2004 Jul 28;292(4):485-9
pubmed: 15280346
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 09;16:15
pubmed: 26857112
Am J Public Health. 2020 Mar;110(3):303-308
pubmed: 31944844
Sociol Health Illn. 2007 Jan;29(1):115-35
pubmed: 17286709
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Nov;63(11):912-9
pubmed: 19648129
Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):191-9
pubmed: 22329994
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2009 Dec;53(6):634-47
pubmed: 18697916
Am J Public Health. 2012 Aug;102(8):1475-81
pubmed: 22698042
J Correct Health Care. 2011 Apr;17(2):138-49
pubmed: 21525117
BMJ. 2013 Apr 11;346:f2216
pubmed: 23578474
Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(7):4-12
pubmed: 24978402
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Aug;67(661):e519-e530
pubmed: 28673958
Aging Ment Health. 2018 Apr;22(4):468-473
pubmed: 28290708
JAMA. 1988 Sep 23-30;260(12):1743-8
pubmed: 3045356