@article{MaritzScheelSailerSchmittetal.2019, author = {Maritz, Roxanne and Scheel-Sailer, Anke and Schmitt, Klaus and Prodinger, Birgit}, title = {Overview of quality management models for inpatient healthcare settings: A scoping review}, series = {International Journal of Quality in Health Care}, volume = {31}, journal = {International Journal of Quality in Health Care}, number = {6}, editor = {Oxford Jounals,}, pages = {404 -- 410}, year = {2019}, abstract = {This scoping review aimed to generate an overview of existing quality management (QM) models for inpatient healthcare published in peer-reviewed literature. Data sources Peer-reviewed publications published until June 2016 were retrieved from the databases Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane Library using search terms related to QM and models. Study selection Publications mentioning a QM model for general application in healthcare or inpatient care in their title or abstract were included. Languages considered were: English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. Data extraction was 3-fold. First, publication characteristics were summarized. Second, the frequency of each identified model was documented and the publications were divided into conceptual and implementation publications. Third, relevant QM models were identified and information regarding the model, including content and relationship with other models, was extracted. Of 925 retrieved publications, 213 were included. The included publications reported on 64 different QM models that were suitable for or used in inpatient care. Seventeen models were identified as being relevant. The 17 models were then categorized into three different levels: conceptual quality improvement models, concrete application models and country specific adaptations. This scoping review provides an overview of 17 existing QM models for inpatient care and their relationships with each other. Various types of models with differing aspects and components exist. In searching for QM models, many different concepts like QM system, accreditation or methodologies appeared. For future investigation, concepts of interest should be clarified.}, language = {en} } @article{LampartGemperliBaumbergeretal.2018, author = {Lampart, Patricia and Gemperli, Armin and Baumberger, Michael and Bersch, Ines and Prodinger, Birgit and Schmitt, Klaus and Scheel-Sailer, Anke}, title = {Administration of assessment instruments during the first rehabilitation of patients with spinal cord injury: a retrospective chart analysis.}, series = {Spinal Cord}, volume = {56}, journal = {Spinal Cord}, number = {4}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, pages = {322 -- 331}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Objectives To examine which professionals administered which assessment instruments in which patient in clinical practice during first rehabilitation after newly acquired spinal cord injury (SCI) and the differences in the frequencies of different assessments between patient groups. Setting Specialized SCI acute care and rehabilitation clinic. Methods Patients after SCI, aged 18 years and above, admitted for first rehabilitation between December 2014 and December 2015 were analyzed. Descriptive statistics of 54 selected assessments. p values based on the χ 2 test were calculated for assessments used in both paraplegic and tetraplegic patients. Results One hundred and nineteen patients were screened. Forty-one assessments were administered, of which 10 on average more than once per patient. The most frequently used assessments were Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (7.7 times per patient), Skin Assessment (3.6 times), and Manual Muscle Test (3.2 times for Lower Extremities; 2.5 times for Upper Extremities). The American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale was administered on average 1.9 times per patient. More variation in the number of assessments per patient was observed in patients with complete and incomplete lesions compared to patients with paraplegia and tetraplegia. Conclusion Assessments covering neurological functioning, mobility, and self-care are used in clinical practice during first rehabilitation of patients with SCI, while others covering autonomic functioning, pain, participation, or quality of life are still missing. Based on these observations and national and international requirements, a meaningful standard for an assessment toolkit, applicable in general and in specific subgroups, needs to be defined and implemented.}, language = {en} }