Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers.

Evaluation of image quality (IQ) in Computed Tomography (CT) is important to ensure that diagnostic questions are correctly answered, whilst keeping radiation dose to the patient as low as is reasonably possible. The assessment of individual aspects of IQ is already a key component of routine quality control of medical x-ray devices. These values together with standard dose indicators can be used to give rise to 'figures of merit' (FOM) to characterise the dose efficiency of the CT scanners operating in certain modes. The demand for clinically relevant IQ characterisation has naturally increased with the development of CT technology (detectors efficiency, image reconstruction and processing), resulting in the adaptation and evolution of assessment methods. The purpose of this review is to present the spectrum of various methods that have been used to characterise image quality in CT: from objective measurements of physical parameters to clinically task-based approaches (i.e. model observer (MO) approach) including pure human observer approach. When combined together with a dose indicator, a generalised dose efficiency index can be explored in a framework of system and patient dose optimisation. We will focus on the IQ methodologies that are required for dealing with standard reconstruction, but also for iterative reconstruction algorithms. With this concept the previously used FOM will be presented with a proposal to update them in order to make them relevant and up to date with technological progress. The MO that objectively assesses IQ for clinically relevant tasks represents the most promising method in terms of radiologist sensitivity performance and therefore of most relevance in the clinical environment.

Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To review and update the conceptual framework, indicator content and research priorities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) project, after a decade of collaborative work. DESIGN: A structured assessment was carried out using a modified Delphi approach, followed by a consensus meeting, to assess the suite of HCQI for international comparisons, agree on revisions to the original framework and set priorities for research and development. SETTING: International group of countries participating to OECD projects. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the OECD HCQI expert group. RESULTS: A reference matrix, based on a revised performance framework, was used to map and assess all seventy HCQI routinely calculated by the OECD expert group. A total of 21 indicators were agreed to be excluded, due to the following concerns: (i) relevance, (ii) international comparability, particularly where heterogeneous coding practices might induce bias, (iii) feasibility, when the number of countries able to report was limited and the added value did not justify sustained effort and (iv) actionability, for indicators that were unlikely to improve on the basis of targeted policy interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The revised OECD framework for HCQI represents a new milestone of a long-standing international collaboration among a group of countries committed to building common ground for performance measurement. The expert group believes that the continuation of this work is paramount to provide decision makers with a validated toolbox to directly act on quality improvement strategies.

A measurement framework for quality health care for adolescents in hospital.

PURPOSE: Despite growing interest in measurement of health care quality and patient experience, the current evidence base largely derives from adult health settings, at least in part because of the absence of appropriately developed measurement tools for adolescents. To rectify this, we set out to develop a conceptual framework and a set of indicators to measure the quality of health care delivered to adolescents in hospital. METHODS: A conceptual framework was developed from the following four elements: (1) a review of the evidence around what young people perceive as "adolescent-friendly" health care; (2) an exploration with adolescent patients of the principles of patient-centered care; (3) a scoping review to identify core clinical practices around working with adolescents; and (4) a scoping review of existing conceptual frameworks. Using criteria for indicator development, we then developed a set of indicators that mapped to this framework. RESULTS: Embedded within the notion of patient- and family-centered care, the conceptual framework for adolescent-friendly health care (quality health care for adolescents) was based on the constructs of experience of care (positive engagement with health care) and evidence-informed care. A set of 14 indicators was developed, half of which related to adolescents' and parents' experience of care and half of which related to aspects of evidence-informed care. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual framework and indicators of quality health care for adolescents set the stage to develop measures to populate these indicators, the next step in the agenda of improving the quality of health care delivered to adolescents in hospital settings.