European Cystic Fibrosis Society Standards of Care: Quality Management in cystic fibrosis

Since the earliest days of cystic fibrosis (CF) treatment, patient data have been recorded and reviewed in order to identify the factors that lead to more favourable outcomes. Large data repositories, such as the US Cystic Fibrosis Registry, which was established in the 1960s, enabled successful treatments and patient outcomes to be recognized and improvement programmes to be implemented in specialist CF centres. Over the past decades, the greater volumes of data becoming available through Centre databases and patient registries led to the possibility of making comparisons between different therapies, approaches to care and indeed data recording. The quality of care for individuals with CF has become a focus at several levels: patient, centre, regional, national and international. This paper reviews the quality management and improvement issues at each of these levels with particular reference to indicators of health, the role of CF Centres, regional networks, national health policy, and international data registration and comparisons. 

Development and Application of Medication Appropriateness Indicators for Persons with Advanced Dementia: A Feasibility Study

Background: No studies have been conducted in the UK context to date that categorise medications in terms of appropriateness for patients with advanced dementia, or that examine medication use in these vulnerable patients.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to categorise the appropriateness of a comprehensive list of medications and medication classes for use in patients with advanced dementia; examine the feasibility of conducting a longitudinal prospective cohort study to collect clinical and medication use data; and determine the appropriateness of prescribing for nursing home residents with advanced dementia in Northern Ireland (NI), using the categories developed.

Methods: A three-round Delphi consensus panel survey of expert clinicians was used to categorise the appropriateness of medications for patients with advanced dementia [defined as having Functional Assessment Staging (FAST) scores ranging from 6E to 7F]. This was followed by a longitudinal prospective cohort feasibility study that was conducted in three nursing homes in NI. Clinical and medication use for participating residents with advanced dementia (FAST scores ranging from 6E to 7F) were collected and a short test of dementia severity administered. These data were collected at baseline and every 3 months for up to 9 months or until death. For those residents who died during the study period, data were also collected within 14 days of death. The appropriateness ratings from the consensus panel survey were retrospectively applied to residents’ medication data at each data collection timepoint to determine the appropriateness of medications prescribed for these residents.

Results: Consensus was achieved for 87 (90 %) of the 97 medications and medication classes included in the survey. Fifteen residents were recruited to participate in the longitudinal prospective cohort feasibility study, four of whom died during the data collection period. Mean numbers of medications prescribed per resident were 16.2 at baseline, 19.6 at 3 months, 17.4 at 6 months and 16.1 at 9 months. Fourteen residents at baseline were taking at least one medication considered by the consensus panel to be never appropriate, and approximately 25 % of medications prescribed were considered to be never appropriate. Post-death data collection indicated a decrease in the proportion of never appropriate medications and an increase in the proportion of always appropriate medications for those residents who died.

Conclusions: This study is the first to develop and apply medication appropriateness indicators for patients with advanced dementia in the UK setting. The Delphi consensus panel survey of expert clinicians was a suitable method of developing such indicators. It is feasible to collect information on quality of life, functional performance, physical comfort, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognitive function for this subpopulation of nursing home residents with advanced dementia.

Reconciliation's Contributions to Quality Peace

In this chapter we ask what unique contributions reconciliation can make toward building quality peace. We begin by briefly reviewing some of the diverse approaches to understanding the term reconciliation, and settle on a formulation consistent with the emerging perspective of a quality of peace. We then identify three levels – international, state-citizen, intergroup – at which reconciliation can impact peace. We explore how reconciliation may function at each level and how specific factors may advance a more robust and lasting peace process. We synthesize this analysis by identifying key aspects of reconciliation that advance our understanding of a quality of peace: inclusive participation, balancing symbolic and material actions, integrating psychosocial processes, and emphasizing generational approaches. The chapter concludes with suggestions of possible indicators and future research that may support the links between reconciliation and peace processes.

PIPc study: development of indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care using a modified Delphi technique

Objective There is limited evidence regarding the quality of prescribing for children in primary care. Several prescribing criteria (indicators) have been developed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing in older and middle-aged adults but few are relevant to children. The objective of this study was to develop a set of prescribing indicators that can be applied to prescribing or dispensing data sets to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care settings.


Design Two-round modified Delphi consensus method.


Setting Irish and UK general practice.


Participants A project steering group consisting of academic and clinical general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists was formed to develop a list of indicators from literature review and clinical expertise. 15 experts consisting of GPs, pharmacists and paediatricians from the Republic of Ireland and the UK formed the Delphi panel.


Results 47 indicators were reviewed by the project steering group and 16 were presented to the Delphi panel. In the first round of this exercise, consensus was achieved on nine of these indicators. Of the remaining seven indicators, two were removed following review of expert panel comments and discussion of the project steering group. The second round of the Delphi process focused on the remaining five indicators, which were amended based on first round feedback. Three indicators were accepted following the second round of the Delphi process and the remaining two indicators were removed. The final list consisted of 12 indicators categorised by respiratory system (n=6), gastrointestinal system (n=2), neurological system (n=2) and dermatological system (n=2).


Conclusions The PIPc indicators are a set of prescribing criteria developed for use in children in primary care in the absence of clinical information. The utility of these criteria will be tested in further studies using prescribing databases.