3 Summary Guide Clinical Indicators 2012 (ACHS)
3 Summary Guide Clinical Indicators 2012 (ACHS)
3 Summary Guide Clinical Indicators 2012 (ACHS)
Indicator Set
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Version CI No.
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
Topic
Rationale
High
95.0
96.8
100
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Continuity of Care,
1.1.4, 1.1.6,
Process Appropriateness,
1.1.8, 1.3.1,
Effectiveness
1.4.1
High
97.1
98.9
100
High
91.8
81.6
99.3
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
98.9
100
100
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Structure Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
97.0
93.9
100
Low
0.063
0.016
0.085
Low
0.72
0.019
1.01
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
1.2
Documentation of risks
and benefits of
anaesthesia
1.3
Prophylactic anti-emetic
treatment in patients with
a documented history of
post-operative nausea and
vomiting (PONV).
3.1
3.2
As described above.
EQuIP5
Criterion
Denominator
1.1
2.2
Dimension of
Quality
Numerator
2.1
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Yes
Indicator Set
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia
Version CI No.
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
Topic
Rationale
3.3
Inadvertent hypothermia
after surgery
3.4
3.5
4.1
Unplanned patient
admission to an intensive
care unit within 24 hours
of a procedure.
5.1
Measurement and
documentation of pain
intensity scores after
major surgery.
5.2
6.1
As described above.
As described above.
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Low
0.18
0.012
0.22
Yes
Low
0.34
0.068
0.49
Yes
Low
1.03
0.089
1.13
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
0.17
0.025
0.20
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Yes
High
95.3
89.0
100
Yes
High
99.9
99.9
100
Low
0.46
0.29
0.47
Yes
Indicator Set
Anaesthesia
Version CI No.
5.1
Topic
Rationale
6.2
Anaesthesia
5.1
6.3
Day Surgery
1.1
Failure to arrive.
1.2
Day Surgery
1.3
Day Surgery
1.4
Day Surgery
2.1
Day Surgery
Day Surgery
Denominator
Commencement of
surgery within 30 minutes
of a request for
As described above.
emergency caesarean
section.
Provision of patient
information regarding
risks and benefits of
As described above.
epidural / spinal analgesia
for labour.
Day Surgery
Numerator
As described above.
3.1
Unplanned overnight
admission.
4.1
Unplanned delay in
discharge of a patient
following
operation/procedure.
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
High
77.3
57.3
95.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
57.7
28.4
99.8
Low
0.93
0.023
1.08
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
0.24
0.040
0.28
Low
0.26
0.060
0.42
Low
0.54
0.041
1.03
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
0.049
0.016
0.067
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
1.23
0.090
1.99
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
0.57
0.020
0.46
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Indicator Set
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
As described above.
As described above.
As described above.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
As described above.
2.1
3.1
Patients admitted or
planned for admission
without reaching an
inpatient bed, transferred
to another hospital for
admission, or died in the
ED whose total ED time
from time of arrival
exceeded 8 hours
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
High
99.5
High
77.0
High
High
High
High
Low
62.7
67.1
85.7
99.5
71.4
57.7
59.3
80.4
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Accessibility,
1.1.4, 1.2.2,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
100
Process
94.2
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Accessibility,
1.1.4, 1.2.2,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
94.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Accessibility,
1.1.4, 1.2.2,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
97.4
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Accessibility,
1.1.4, 1.2.2,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
99.2
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Accessibility,
1.1.4, 1.2.2,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Modified
for
2H2011
Modified
for
2H2011
Indicator Set
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
As described above.
Low
Modified
for
2H2011
Process
As described above.
Low
Modified
for
2H2011
Process
Process
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
3.2
3.3
4.1
Low
New
indicator
for
2H2011
4.2
Low
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Process
5.1
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Low
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
1.4.1
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
1.4.1
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.1.4, 1.1.6,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
1.4.1
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.1.4, 1.1.6,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
1.4.1
Indicator Set
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Version CI No.
5.2
6.1
6.2
7.1
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Low
High
High
High
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
New
indicator
for
2H2011
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Accessment, Care
Planning and
Delivery,
Evaluation of Care,
Discharge/Transfe
r, Ongoing Care,
Process
Health Record
Documentation,
Appropriateness
of Care,
Effectiveness of
Care
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.4.1, 1.1.5,
1.1.6, 1.1.8,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Accessment, Care
Planning and
Delivery,
Evaluation of Care,
Discharge/Transfe
r, Ongoing Care,
Process
Health Record
Documentation,
Appropriateness
of Care,
Effectiveness of
Care
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.4.1, 1.1.5,
1.1.6, 1.1.8,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Accessment, Care
Planning and
Delivery,
Evaluation of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Health Record
1.1.4, 1.1.8,
Process
Documentation,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Appropriateness
of Care,
Effectiveness of
Care
Indicator Set
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Emergency
Medicine
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.1
As described above.
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
High
High
High
Low
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Accessment, Care
Planning and
Delivery,
Evaluation of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Health Record
1.1.4, 1.1.8,
Process
Documentation,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Appropriateness
of Care,
Effectiveness of
Care
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Accessment, Care
Planning and
Delivery,
Evaluation of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Health Record
1.1.4, 1.1.8,
Process
Documentation,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Appropriateness
of Care,
Effectiveness of
Care
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Accessment, Care
Planning and
Delivery,
Evaluation of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Health Record
1.1.4, 1.1.8,
Process
Documentation,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Appropriateness
of Care,
Effectiveness of
Care
New
indicator
for
2H2011
Accessment, Care
Planning and
Delivery,
Evaluation of Care,
Ongoing Care,
Health Record
Process Documentation,
Access &
Admission,
Appropriateness
of Care,
Effectiveness of
Care
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.1.4, 1.1.6,
1.1.8, 1.2.2,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Indicator Set
Emergency
Medicine
Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
8.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
Denominator
As described above.
As described above.
Total number of
Total number of patients
colonoscopies less total
treated for possible perforation
number of colonoscopy with
not related to polypectomy.
polypectomies.
Low
Total number of
colonoscopies.
As described above.
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total number of
colonoscopy with
polypectomies.
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Accessment, Care
Planning and
Delivery,
Evaluation of Care,
Ongoing Care,
Health Record
Process Documentation,
Access &
Admission,
Appropriateness
of Care,
Effectiveness of
Care
New
indicator
for
2H2011
1.37
0.062
0.036
0.068
0.13
Dimension of
Quality
0.28
0.046
0.023
EQuIP5
Criterion
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
1.1.4, 1.1.6,
1.1.8, 1.2.2,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
2.10
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.073
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.038
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.33
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.13
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.14
Indicator Set
Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy
Version CI No.
2.2
2.3
As described above.
3.1
Patients having an
overnight stay as a result
of aspiration.
Gynaecology
1.2
Gynaecology
Denominator
1.1
Gynaecology
Numerator
As described above.
Rationale
Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Topic
2.1
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
3.1
Laparoscopic
These indicators have been included as an index
gynaecological surgery for of the utilisation of a laparoscopic approach for
injury to a major viscus
gynaecological surgery.
3.2
Laparoscopic
gynaecological surgery for As described above.
a ureter injury
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
0.015
0.034
0.006
0.034
EQuIP5
Criterion
0.015
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.034
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Low
0.017
0.013
0.016
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Yes
Low
0.74
0.41
1.15
Continuity of Care,
Outcome,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Process
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
9.19
5.15
12.2
Continuity of Care,
Outcome,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Process
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
0.50
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.69
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Process
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.18
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Yes
Low
Dimension of
Quality
Low
Low
Low
0.32
0.51
0.18
0.15
0.43
0.18
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Gynaecology
3.3
Laparoscopic
gynaecological surgery for As described above.
a bladder injury
Gynaecology
4.1
Laparoscopic
This indicator has been included as an index of
management of an ectopic the utilisation of a laparoscopic approach in the
pregnancy
management of ectopic pregnancy.
5.1
As described above.
Gynaecology
Gynaecology
5.2
Urogynaecology
Urogynaecology
Gynaecology
5.3
Urogynaecology
As described above.
Gynaecology
6.1
Antibiotic prophylaxis in
hysterectomy
7.1
Thromboprophylaxis in
moderate to high risk
women having
hysterectomy
7.2
Thromboprophylaxis in
moderate to high risk
As described above.
women having pelvic floor
surgery
Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Low
0.64
0.64
0.64
High
84.5
77.3
92.5
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
1.32
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.037
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Low
Yes
EQuIP5
Criterion
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Low
Yes
Dimension of
Quality
0.85
0.037
0.57
0.037
Low
0.48
1.13
1.13
Yes
High
99.0
99.1
99.2
Process
Yes
High
95.7
96.7
99.3
Yes
High
88.8
88.4
96.0
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
10
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2011
As described above.
Yes
Low
1.36
0.59
3.48
Yes
Low
0.24
0.11
0.46
2.07
4.45
Hospital in the
Home
1.1
Hospital in the
Home
1.2
1.3
2.1
Yes
Low
2.98
As described above.
Yes
Not
specified
Modified
indicator
for 2011
As described above.
Yes
Not
specified
4.91
Hospital in the
Home
EQuIP5
Criterion
One unexpected
telephone call during the
HITH admission.
Hospital in the
Home
Dimension of
Quality
Hospital in the
Home
2.2
Unplanned return to
hospital - back to HITH
program
Hospital in the
Home
2.3
Unplanned returns to
hospital
Low
New
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
New
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
2.79
7.99
Hospital in the
Home
3.1
Hospital in the
Home
3.2
As described above.
As described above.
Hospital-Wide
11.1
1.1
Unplanned and
unexpected hospital
readmissions.
Yes
Low
1.22
0.24
2.11
Hospital-Wide
11.1
1.2
Unplanned and
unexpected hospital
readmissions.
As described above.
Yes
Low
1.14
0.26
1.79
11
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Hospital-Wide
11.1
2.1
Hospital-Wide
11.1
3.1
Hospital-Wide
Hospital-Wide
Hospital-Wide
Hospital-Wide
Hospital-Wide
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
As described above.
Identification of falls
during an admission.
Identification of falls
during an admission.
Identification of falls
during an admission.
As described above.
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Yes
Low
0.32
0.12
0.39
Yes
Low
0.075
0.019
0.10
Outcome
0.77
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Appropriateness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.4.1, 1.5.3
Safety
0.58
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.4
Safety
0.19
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness, 1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Safety, Quality
1.4.1, 1.5.4,
Improvement and
2.1.3
Risk
0.011
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness, 1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Safety, Quality
1.4.1, 1.5.4,
Improvement and
2.1.3
Risk
0.82
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Safety, Quality
1.5.4, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Identification of pressure
ulcers.
Identification of falls
during an admission.
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
As described above.
As described above.
Low
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
Yes
Low
Yes
Low
0.28
0.37
0.11
0.009
0.51
0.053
0.21
0.017
0.005
0.33
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Appropriateness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Effectiveness,
1.4.1, 1.5.3
Safety
12
Indicator Set
Hospital-Wide
Hospital-Wide
Hospital-Wide
Hospital-Wide
Version CI No.
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
5.1
Topic
6.1
Administration of blood
transfusion.
6.2
Administration of blood
transfusion.
6.3
Administration of blood
transfusion.
Hospital-Wide
11.1
7.1
Hospital-Wide
11.1
8.1
Rationale
Denominator
High
95.0
98.4
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
99.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
0.31
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness, 1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Safety, Quality
1.4.1, 1.5.5,
Improvement and
2.1.3
Risk
10.9
As described above.
As described above.
Yes
Low
2.22
1.15
3.41
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Process
Effectiveness,
1.5.5
Safety
Yes
High
86.3
81.1
98.1
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
77.1
51.3
91.1
Numerator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Low
Yes
Low
0.25
4.49
0.082
0.63
13
Indicator Set
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Version CI No.
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
1.1
1.2
As described above.
1.3
1.4
As described above.
Infection Control
3.1
1.5
Infection Control
3.1
1.6
Deep incisional/organ
space SSI (chest incision
site) in CABG
As described above.
Infection Control
3.1
1.7
As described above.
Infection Control
3.1
1.8
Deep incisional/organ
space SSI (donor incision
site) in CABG
As described above.
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
Low
Low
0.73
0.71
0.61
0.43
0.57
0.52
0.51
0.34
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
1.04
Outcome
0.94
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
0.77
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
0.53
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Yes
Low
1.16
0.85
1.45
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Yes
Low
1.14
0.72
1.55
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Yes
Low
1.61
0.65
2.04
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Yes
Low
0.31
0.30
0.32
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
14
Indicator Set
Infection Control
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Yes
Low
2.99
1.54
4.20
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Yes
Low
2.23
1.68
2.56
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
6.22
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
1.08
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
3.1
1.9
3.1
Deep incisional/organ
1.10 space SSI in elective
colectomy
3.1
3.1
Total number of deep incisional Total number of femoroSSI in femoro-popliteal bypass popliteal bypass procedures
procedures performed.
performed.
3.1
Infection Control
3.1
Deep incisional/organ
space SSI in open
1.14
abdominal aortic
aneurysm
Yes
Low
0.95
0.95
0.95
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
Yes
Low
0.79
0.29
1.40
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
1.16
Deep
incisional/organ/space SSI
As described above.
in lower segment
caesarean section
Yes
Low
0.17
0.080
0.25
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
1.17
Yes
Low
0.47
0.44
0.51
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
Deep incisional/organ
1.18 space SSI in abdominal
hysterectomy
Yes
Low
0.90
0.64
0.84
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
As described above.
As described above.
As described above.
As described above.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
Low
5.38
1.08
3.76
1.08
15
Indicator Set
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Version CI No.
3.1
3.1
3.1
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
2.1
Not
specified
2.2
Adult ICU-related
peripherally-inserted
CLUR
Not
specified
2.3
Paediatric ICU-related
centrally-inserted (CI)
CLABSI rate
As described above.
As described above.
As described above.
Yes
Low
54.8
8.82
4.16
26.7
5.01
4.16
69.5
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
17.4
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Process
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
4.16
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Process
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
2.4
Paediatric ICU-related
centrally-inserted CLUR
Infection Control
3.1
2.5
Paediatric ICU-related
peripherally-inserted (PI)
CLABSI rate
As described above.
Infection Control
3.1
2.6
Paediatric ICU-related
peripherally-inserted
CLUR
As described above.
Infection Control
3.1
2.7
Haematology Unit CI
CLABSI rate
As described above.
Yes
Low
1.88
0.75
3.16
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
2.8
Haematology Unit PI
CLABSI rate
As described above.
Yes
Low
1.06
0.89
1.39
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Yes
Not
specified
36.4
36.4
36.4
Low
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Not
specified
34.7
33.7
35.7
Process
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
16
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Infection Control
3.1
2.9
As described above.
Yes
Low
0.21
0.038
0.86
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
2.10
As described above.
Yes
Low
0.19
0.039
0.73
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
As described above.
0.063
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
As described above.
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
0.15
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
Low
0.063
0.067
0.063
0.072
As described above.
Total number of synthetic graft Total number of patient access-associated blood stream months for patients dialysed
infections.
through synthetic grafts.
Yes
Low
0.67
0.67
0.67
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
3.2
Haemodialysis synthetic
graft - associated BSI
Infection Control
3.1
3.3
Haemodialysis native
vessel graft - associated
BSI
As described above.
Yes
Low
1.32
0.85
1.08
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
3.4
Haemodialysis centrally
inserted non-cuffed line
(temporary) - associated
BSI
As described above.
Yes
Low
1.93
1.92
1.92
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Infection Control
3.1
3.5
Haemodialysis centrally
inserted cuffed
(semipermanent) line associated BSI
As described above.
Yes
Low
2.28
0.94
3.79
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
17
Indicator Set
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Version CI No.
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Topic
Rationale
4.1
4.2
4.3
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
Low
0.073
0.016
27.3
0.059
0.016
27.3
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
0.065
Outcome
0.016
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
27.3
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Yes
Low
1.21
1.20
1.20
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
4.4
4.5
Yes
Low
0.51
0.51
0.51
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
4.6
Yes
Low
0.096
0.096
0.096
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
As described above.
18
Indicator Set
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Infection Control
Version CI No.
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
5.1
5.2
5.3
As described above.
5.4
6.1
6.2
Reported parenteral
exposures sustained by
staff
Reported non-parenteral
exposures sustained by
staff
As described above.
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1.65
7.43
0.29
1.66
0.039
0.014
1.52
2.94
0.18
0.42
0.025
0.008
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
1.87
Outcome
10.7
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
0.26
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
1.68
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
0.046
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Safety, Quality
1.5.2, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.015
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Safety, Quality
1.5.2, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
19
Indicator Set
Intensive Care
Intensive Care
Intensive Care
Intensive Care
Intensive Care
Intensive Care
Intensive Care
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
As described above.
As described above.
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Structure
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Assessiblity,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Structure
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Assessiblity,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Structure
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Assessiblity,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
15.8
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Assessiblity,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
New
indicator
for 2011
Yes
High
Modified
indicator
for 2011
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Yes
2.1
Recognising and
responding to clinical
deterioration within 72
hours of being discharged
from an Intensive Care
Unit
3.1
Venous
Thromboembolism (VTE)
prophylaxis
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Assessiblity,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Modified
indicator
for 2011
EQuIP5
Criterion
Low
1.1
Dimension of
Quality
Yes
Yes
Yes
4.89
26.7
20
Indicator Set
Intensive Care
Intensive Care
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
4.1
Centrally-inserted CLAB
attributed to the ICU
4.2
Peripherally-inserted CLAB
As described above.
attributed to the ICU
Intensive Care
5.1
Intensive Care
5.2
Yes
1.00
0.70
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
1.20
Outcome
0.86
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
High
Modified
indicator
for 2011
Not
specified
Modified
indicator
for 2011
Not
specified
New
indicator
for 2011
Not
specified
New
indicator
for 2011
6.1
Recognising and
responding to clinical
deterioration within an
acute health care facility
Intensive Care
6.2
As described above.
As described above.
0.78
EQuIP5
Criterion
0.77
Intensive Care
Yes
Low
Dimension of
Quality
Low
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
21
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Intensive Care
6.3
As described above.
As described above.
Low
New
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Intensive Care
6.4
As described above.
As described above.
Low
New
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Intensive Care
6.5
As described above.
As described above.
Low
New
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
1.1
Prescription of ACE
Inhibitor (ACEI) or
Angiotensin II Receptor
Antagonist (A2RA) for the
treatment of patients
discharged with any
diagnosis of Congestive
Heart Failure (CHF) in
whom there is no
contraindication to their
use.
High
N/A
N/A
N/A
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
1.2
Prescription of beta
blocker therapy to
patients discharged with
any diagnosis of
congestive heart failure
(CHF) in whom there is no
contraindication to their
use.
There is NHMRC Level I evidence that betablocker therapy can improve survival, reduce
hospitalisations and improve left ventricular
function. Evidence suggests that all patients with
left systolic dysfunction should be treated with
beta-blockers after stabilisation with diuretic and
ACEI therapy regardless of whether or not
symptoms persist.
High
N/A
N/A
N/A
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
1.3
High
N/A
N/A
N/A
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
22
Indicator Set
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
1.4
Referral to a chronic
disease management
service for patients
discharged with a
diagnosis of congestive
heart failure (CHF).
1.5
Receipt of thrombolytic
therapy for acute
myocardial infarction
(AMI).
1.6
Clinical outcome of
percutaneous transluminal
coronary angioplasty
(PTCA) with or without
stenting.
As described above.
1.7
As described above.
2.1
2.2
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
High
N/A
N/A
N/A
High
80.8
76.5
87.5
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
96.5
95.6
98.3
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
0.17
0.087
0.20
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
89.3
89.3
89.3
High
95.9
90.6
98.7
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Yes
23
Indicator Set
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Version CI No.
Numerator
Denominator
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Topic
Stroke Investigation.
Receipt of hyperacute
pharmacological therapy
for ischaemic stroke.
Rationale
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Low
12.10
3.31
19.4
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
85.0
71.6
96.0
High
93.4
91.6
99.1
High
72.6
70.3
72.7
High
60.4
39.1
86.2
Yes
24
Indicator Set
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Version CI No.
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Topic
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Receipt of hyperacute
pharmacological therapy
for ischaemic stroke.
High
28.0
11.6
79.1
Appropriate discharge
planning for stroke.
High
67.0
55.1
83.5
Appropriate discharge
planning for stroke.
High
84.2
77.5
89.1
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Stroke unit care is defined as dedicated, coordinated care for stroke patients in hospital
under a multidisciplinary team who specialise in
stroke management. Robust data from
randomised, controlled clinical studies have been
available for over 10 years highlighting the
benefits of providing care in organised units,
known as (stroke units). The updated Cochrane
review (Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration, 2007)
now includes 26 studies which provide
overwhelming and consistent evidence that
stroke unit care significantly reduces death and
disability (~20% improvement) after stroke
compared with conventional care in general
wards for all people with stroke. Stroke unit care
is the most generalisable, effective intervention
for acute stroke.
High
86.9
75.8
91.7
25
Indicator Set
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
High
71.5
62.1
91.9
4.2
Assessment of physical
function
High
94.7
87.1
99.9
4.3
Prescription of vitamin D
therapy in patients 65
years and over admitted
to general medical units
with a documented
vitamin D deficiency.
High
65.8
50.3
85.8
Referral to a chronic
disease management
service for patients with
COPD.
High
10.9
10.9
10.9
Assessment of asthma
severity and asthma
management plans.
High
98.1
99.1
99.8
4.1
5.1
5.2
26
Indicator Set
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Version CI No.
5.3
Topic
As described above.
5.4
As described above.
6.1
Management of patients
admitted with
haematemesis and / or
melaena who receive a
blood transfusion.
6.2
6.3
6.4
As described above.
As described above.
As described above.
Rationale
As described above.
Numerator
As described above.
As described above.
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
High
84.5
62.4
98.9
High
70.8
33.8
82.4
High
73.1
67.9
76.7
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.5.5
Safety
High
83.1
78.1
88.0
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
16.3
16.5
16.5
Not
specified
4.64
3.52
5.17
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
27
Indicator Set
Internal Medicine
Version CI No.
6.5
Topic
As described above.
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Yes
Low
5.04
2.65
8.01
High
93.2
92.8
93.9
8.1
1.1
2.1
Medication errors
resulting in an adverse
event requiring
intervention beyond
routine observation and
monitoring.
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
7.1
3.09
4.80
Medication
Safety
3.09
4.80
Internal Medicine
3.09
4.81
As described above.
Not
specified
Low
6.6
Medication
Safety
EQuIP5
Criterion
Yes
Dimension of
Quality
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Not
specified
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Process
Safety, Quality
1.5.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.023
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Safety, Quality
1.5.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.001
0.015
28
Indicator Set
Medication
Safety
Medication
Safety
Medication
Safety
Medication
Safety
Medication
Safety
Medication
Safety
Medication
Safety
Version CI No.
3.1
4.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Topic
Documentation of a
patients known adverse
drug reactions (ADRs) on
the medication chart.
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
High
As described above.
As described above.
As described above.
As described above.
Yes
88.0
EQuIP5
Criterion
97.3
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Process
Safety, Quality
1.5.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Low
5.8
0.33
9.3
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Process
Safety, Quality
1.5.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Yes
Low
0.95
0.39
0.62
Yes
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2011
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.1.5, 1.3.1,
Process
Effectiveness,
1.4.1, 1.5.1
Safety
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
As described above.
As described above.
Yes
High
Modified
indicator
for 2011
As described above.
Yes
High
Modified
indicator
for 2011
As described above.
High
New
indicator
for 2011
74.3
Dimension of
Quality
Outcome
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness,
1.5.1
Safety
29
Indicator Set
Medication
Safety
Mental Health
Community
Based
Mental Health
Community
Based
Mental Health
Community
Based
Mental Health
Community
Based
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
6.1
1.1
Registered consumers
seen face-to-face by the
community service
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
High
New
indicator
for 2011
Not
specified
1.2
Consumers or nominated
carers with greater than As described above.
24 treatment days
Not
specified
1.3
Consumers or nominated
carers with 3 or more face- As described above.
to-face contacts
Not
specified
10.9
1.4
Low
Yes
Process
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Appropriateness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Effectiveness,
1.4.1, 1.5.1
Safety
98.3
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.1, 1.2.2,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
14.4
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.1, 1.2.2,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
0.23
16.5
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.1, 1.2.2,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
8.95
1.88
13.4
High
86.2
55.4
99.9
81.7
16.2
69.5
0.17
Mental Health
Community
Based
2.1
Mental Health
Community
Based
2.2
Carers involved in
developing care plans
As described above.
High
83.8
13.2
100
Mental Health
Inpatient
1.1
Inpatients - diagnosis
within 24 hours of
admission
High
93.3
90.7
99.6
Mental Health
Inpatient
1.2
Inpatients - diagnosis
recorded on hospital
discharge
As described above.
High
89.6
80.3
99.7
1.3
Inpatient with an
individual care plan, which
is constructed and
As described above.
regularly reviewed with
the consumer
High
82.8
73.5
99.4
Mental Health
Inpatient
Yes
30
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Mental Health
Inpatient
2.1
Inpatients - complete
physical examination
within 48 hours of
admission
Mental Health
Inpatient
3.1
4.1
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
4.2
Mental Health
Inpatient
5.1
5.2
As described above.
Mental Health
Inpatient
5.3
As described above.
5.4
As described above.
EQuIP5
Criterion
Yes
High
83.0
74.1
99.3
Yes
Low
4.07
0.23
6.8
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
8.80
5.56
16.2
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
0.63
0.49
0.68
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Low
8.45
3.41
13.3
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
35.6
32.7
39.4
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
52.7
23.1
70.2
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
0.096
0.096
0.096
Yes
Mental Health
Inpatient
5.5
Inpatients - major
complications while in
seclusion
As described above.
Mental Health
Inpatient
5.6
Inpatients having
seclusion
As described above.
Dimension of
Quality
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Low
0.64
0.46
0.71
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Low
2.78
1.0
1.90
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
31
Indicator Set
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
5.7
5.8
Inpatient separations
having physical restraint
who experience major
As described above.
complications while under
restraint
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Inpatients - assault
As described above.
As described above.
6.5
Inpatients - significant
other injuries
6.6
Inpatients assaulted by
staff, visitors, or other
inpatient
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
As described above.
As described above.
Low
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1.51
0.23
0.50
2.04
26.9
0.41
0.25
0.82
0.078
0.23
0.12
0.12
24.8
0.19
0.13
0.043
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
2.23
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
0.23
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.70
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
3.62
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
29.1
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.58
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.42
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
1.25
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
32
Indicator Set
Mental Health
Inpatient
Version CI No.
7.1
Topic
Unplanned readmissions
within 28 days
Rationale
Numerator
Mental Health
Inpatient
8.1
Mental Health
Inpatient
9.1
Mental Health
Inpatient
9.2
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
Mental Health
Inpatient
12.1
Voluntary inpatient
admission
Denominator
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Yes
Low
6.92
2.60
10.10
Yes
Low
0.058
0.042
0.055
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Effectiveness
High
69.1
52.0
96.0
Yes
High
78.7
61.0
99.1
Yes
High
94.2
90.0
98.5
Yes
Low
15.3
9.05
21.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Not
specified
58.7
36.9
93.5
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
45.8
36.4
57.7
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Obstetrics
1.1
Obstetrics
1.2
Obstetrics
1.3
As described above.
Obstetrics
1.4
Selected primipara
undergoing caesarean
section.
As described above.
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Low
29.1
22.8
34.0
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
24.3
19.2
27.8
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
28.0
22.4
33.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
33
Indicator Set
Obstetrics
Obstetrics
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
2.1
3.1
Obstetrics
3.2
Selected primipara
undergoing episiotomy
and no perineal tear.
Obstetrics
3.3
Selected primipara
sustaining a perineal tear
and no episiotomy.
Numerator
Denominator
Yes
Not
specified
14.4
8.24
21.0
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Continuity of Care,
Process,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
Modified
indicator
for 2011
As described above.
Yes
Low
29.2
17.7
39.6
Continuity of Care,
Process,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
As described above.
Yes
Low
47.1
38.9
50.5
Continuity of Care,
Process,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
As described above.
Yes
Low
5.89
2.90
6.75
Continuity of Care,
Process,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
4.49
2.72
5.15
Continuity of Care,
Process,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
0.35
0.31
0.38
Continuity of Care,
Process,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Obstetrics
3.4
Selected primipara
undergoing episiotomy
and sustaining a perineal
tear.
Obstetrics
3.5
Obstetrics
3.6
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Continuity of Care,
Process,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
34
Indicator Set
Obstetrics
Obstetrics
Obstetrics
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
5.1
Antibiotic prophylaxis in
elective and emergency
caesarean section.
6.1
Pharmacological
thromboprophylaxis for
women at high risk for
venous thromboembolism
(VTE) giving birth by
caesarean section.
4.1
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Low
6.15
3.60
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
9.48
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
85.3
75.6
97.8
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Process
Effectiveness,
1.5.2
Safety
Yes
High
69.2
36.5
90.1
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
1.26
0.78
1.57
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
1.64
1.02
2.27
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Obstetrics
7.1
Incidence of postpartum
haemorrhage (PPH) and
blood transfusions after
vaginal birth.
Obstetrics
7.2
Incidence of postpartum
haemorrhage (PPH) and
blood transfusions after
caesarean section.
As described above.
8.1
Identification of babies
with severe intrauterine
growth restriction (IUGR),
babies less than the 3rd
centile delivered after 40
weeks.
Yes
Low
1.82
1.49
2.03
Continuity of Care,
Process,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
Outcome
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
1.15
0.74
1.42
Obstetrics
Obstetrics
9.1
35
Indicator Set
Obstetrics
Obstetrics
Ophthalmology
Ophthalmology
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
1.1
1.2
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Low
10.0
2.22
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
12.5
High
84.2
94.6
99.1
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness, 1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Process
Quality
2.1.1, 2.1.2,
Improvement and
2.1.3
Risk
Yes
Low
0.35
0.058
0.49
As described above.
Yes
Low
0.041
0.029
0.038
Yes
Low
0.44
0.034
0.59
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
0.62
0.18
0.76
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Ophthalmology
1.3
As described above.
Ophthalmology
1.4
Ophthalmology
2.1
Yes
Low
3.07
1.88
2.79
Yes
Low
Low
4.16
0.50
1.68
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Ophthalmology
2.2
As described above.
Ophthalmology
2.3
Yes
36
Indicator Set
Ophthalmology
Ophthalmology
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
3.1
Retinal detachment
surgery - unplanned
readmission within 28
days
3.2
Retinal detachment
surgery - unplanned
As described above.
readmission within 28 due
to endophthalmitis
As described above.
Numerator
Denominator
EQuIP5
Criterion
Yes
Low
2.49
0.36
1.27
Yes
Low
Low
1.13
1.03
1.31
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
1.78
1.63
1.71
Low
Low
Ophthalmology
3.3
Ophthalmology
3.4
Retinal detachment
surgery - re-operation
within 28 days
As described above.
4.1
Dimension of
Quality
Retinal detachment
surgery - Length of stay
(LOS) greater than 4 days
following surgery
Ophthalmology
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ophthalmology
4.2
Ophthalmology
4.3
As described above.
Yes
Low
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Ophthalmology
4.4
As described above.
Yes
Low
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Ophthalmology
4.5
As described above.
Low
0.065
0.065
0.065
Oral Health
1.1
Retreatment following
restorative treatment
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2012
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Oral Health
1.2
As described above.
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2012
Yes
Yes
37
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Oral Health
1.3
As described above.
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2012
Oral Health
1.4
Denture Remakes
As described above.
Low
2.64
2.1
Completed endodontic
treatment
High
Modified
indicator
for 2012
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
2.2
Extraction following
commencement of
endodontic treatment
Low
Modified
indicator
for 2012
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
3.1
Low
New
indicator
for 2012
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
3.2
Low
3.59
1.14
4.07
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
3.3
Low
2.61
2.46
3.54
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Oral Health
Oral Health
Oral Health
Oral Health
Oral Health
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
1.26
5.84
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
38
Indicator Set
Oral Health
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
4.1
Maximum diagnostic
ability of bite-wing
radiographs.
1.1
Documented current
immunisation status
As described above.
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
High
Modified
indicator
for 2012
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
91.2
81.3
98.7
Yes
High
60.2
33.4
84.6
1.2
Catch-up immunisation
given or planned
2.1
Yes
Low
Mean =
1.64
1.40
1.91
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
2.2
Yes
Low
Mean =
1.88
1.52
2.04
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
2.3
Readmissions to hospital
for asthma within 28 days As described above.
of discharge
Yes
Low
3.92
3.25
4.40
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
72.5
0.055
100
3.1
As described above.
39
Indicator Set
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Paediatric
Pathology
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
As described above.
As described above.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.1
3.2
1.1
Turnaround time of
requests for serum /
plasma potassium from
the Emergency
Department (ED), (or
requests specified as
urgent)
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Not
specified
N/A
N/A
N/A
Low
2.14
0.97
3.37
Structure
0.81
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Structure
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Structure
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
23.4
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
Low
Low
0.81
15.4
0.81
0.083
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
13.6
11.1
16.4
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
2.33
1.62
2.88
Yes
High
85.3
80.5
91.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
40
Indicator Set
Pathology
Pathology
Pathology
Pathology
Pathology
Pathology
Pathology
Version CI No.
2.1
Topic
Rationale
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Numerator
Denominator
Yes
High
88.5
81.0
95.1
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
80.0
62.9
93.6
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
55.3
44.7
82.2
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
58.4
40.9
86.8
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
2.2
Turnaround time of
requests for haemoglobin
As described above.
from the Emergency
Department (ED)
2.3
Turnaround time of
requests for Coagulation
As described above.
Tests from the Emergency
Department (ED)
2.4
Turnaround time of
requests for Coagulation
As described above.
Tests from the Emergency
Department (ED)
3.1
Yes
High
54.8
35.0
78.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
3.2
Turnaround time of
As described above.
requests for large biopsies
Yes
High
52.8
32.7
76.0
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
3.3
Turnaround time of
As described above.
requests for small biopsies
Yes
High
49.8
17.4
76.4
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
41
Indicator Set
Pathology
Pathology
Pathology
Radiation
Oncology
Radiation
Oncology
Radiation
Oncology
Radiation
Oncology
Radiation
Oncology
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
3.4
Turnaround time of
As described above.
requests for large biopsies
4.1
Turnaround time of
requests for cerebrospinal
fluid (CSF) samples from
the Emergency
Department (ED)
4.2
Turnaround time of
requests for cerebrospinal
fluid (CSF) samples from As described above.
the Emergency
Department (ED)
1.1
1.2
Informed consent is
recorded in the patients
medical record before
receiving radiotherapy
Patients entry on
prospective clinical trials
1.3
2.1
2.2
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Yes
High
40.2
31.4
77.0
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
71.6
41.6
85.8
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
High
69.7
46.8
80.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Yes
Low
29.3
10.8
42.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessibility,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Process
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
97.7
99.8
99.9
High
2.97
0.44
3.34
Continuity of Care,
Accessbility,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Appropriateness,
1.1.8, 1.2.2,
Process Effectiveness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Quality
2.5.1
Improvement and
Risk
Low
28.6
22.2
31.6
Process
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessbility,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
69.4
67.7
74.3
Process
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Accessbility,
1.2.2, 1.3.1,
Appropriateness,
1.4.1
Effectiveness
42
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Radiation
Oncology
2.3
Radiation
Oncology
2.4
Curative megavoltage
radiotherapy courses
provided where CT
planning was utilised
2.5
3.1
Radiotherapy treatment
for glottic cancer (T 1-2
NO MO) with complete
follow up
Radiation
Oncology
Radiation
Oncology
Radiation
Oncology
Radiology
Radiology
Radiology
Radiology
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
High
89.3
77.7
94.0
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
98.9
98.3
100
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Structure Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
High
90.6
89.6
99.8
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Continuity of Care,
1.1.5, 1.1.6,
Process Appropriateness,
1.1.8, 1.3.1,
Effectiveness
1.4.1
Yes
High
94.6
95.7
97.8
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
3.2
Radiotherapy treatment
for breast conservation
Follow up is essential to assess quality and
(pT 1- 3, any nodal staging,
effectiveness of radiotherapy.
M0) with complete follow
up
Yes
High
74.8
57.5
96.1
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
1.1
Reports on radiographic
examinations not available If a radiological study is to have any impact on
to the referring doctor
patient management, it should be available to the
within 24 hours of
referring doctor within 24 hours.
completion
Total number of
radiographic examination
requests, during the 7 day
time period.
Yes
Low
24.2
3.56
43.6
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
2.1
Percutaneous trans
pleural biopsy of lung or
mediastinum pneumothorax or
haemothorax
Low
8.06
5.04
14.0
2.2
Peripheral embolic
complications during limb As described above.
angioplasty
2.3
Iodinated contrast
extravasation during an IV
As described above.
contrast enhanced CT
procedure
Yes
Yes
Low
0.74
0.51
0.82
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Yes
Low
0.27
0.21
0.33
43
Indicator Set
Radiology
Rehabilitation
Medicine
Rehabilitation
Medicine
Rehabilitation
Medicine
Version CI No.
Topic
2.4
Puncture site
complications during or
following angiography.
1.1
Timely assessment of
function within 72 hours
of patient admission.
2.1
3.1
Rehabilitation
Medicine
4.1
Rehabilitation
Medicine
5.1
Rationale
As described above.
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
Low
0.97
0.33
1.75
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Yes
High
96.3
92.3
99.9
Yes
High
96.7
93.5
99.9
Yes
High
97.2
94.3
99.9
High
98.6
98.4
100
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Continuity of Care,
1.1.5, 1.1.6,
Process Appropriateness,
1.1.8, 1.3.1,
Effectiveness
1.4.1
High
95.0
90.4
99.1
Yes
44
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Denominator
Rehabilitation
Medicine
6.1
Surgical
1.1
Pyloromyotomy in which
mucosal perforation
occurs
1.2
Surgical
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
High
89.3
80.6
96.9
Low
1.20
1.20
1.20
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
18.9
13.4
25.0
Yes
Low
5.64
2.36
8.23
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Yes
Surgical
1.3
Appendicectomy with
normal histology but
significant other intra
abdominal pathology
Surgical
2.1
Not
specified
Mean =
48.2
39.5
60.9
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Not
specified
Mean =
3.08
2.30
3.32
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Not
specified
Mean =
22.8
17.7
26.7
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Process Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Low
3.23
1.63
3.72
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
As described above.
Surgical
2.2
Surgical
2.3
2.4
Surgical
As described above.
Yes
45
Indicator Set
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
Numerator
Surgical
2.5
Surgical
3.1
Surgical
4.1
Surgical
5.1
Coronary artery graft surgery (CAGS) is the most Total number of patients who
commonly performed cardiac operation in adults. die in the same admission as
Low mortality is now achievable.
having CAGS.
Surgical
5.2
As described above.
5.3
Surgical
Denominator
Low
5.17
2.49
8.38
Yes
Low
1.16
0.79
1.53
High
90.4
83.7
94.5
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
1.71
1.64
1.75
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
1.33
1.33
1.33
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
Yes
Low
2.98
2.98
2.98
Continuity of Care,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Outcome Appropriateness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1
Effectiveness
6.1
Surgical
6.2
Neurosurgery - new
neurological deficit
following procedure
7.1
Laparoscopic
cholecystectomy - bile
duct injury requiring
operative intervention
8.1
Yes
Surgical
EQuIP5
Criterion
Yes
Surgical
Dimension of
Quality
Surgical
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Low
1.14
0.79
1.54
Continuity of Care,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Appropriateness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Effectiveness,
1.4.1, 1.5.2
Safety
Yes
Low
1.08
0.69
1.49
0.69
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.2, 1.1.4,
Effectiveness,
1.3.1, 1.4.1,
Outcome
Quality
2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
1.24
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
0.50
1.29
0.30
0.89
46
Indicator Set
Surgical
Surgical
Version CI No.
Topic
Rationale
8.2
9.1
Otolaryngology,
Tonsillectomy is a commonly performed
tonsillectomy - significant discretionary procedure with a low, but definite,
reactionary haemorrhage morbidity.
Numerator
Denominator
Associated
Associated
with a
2010
with an
Desirable
20
80
Type of
Potentially
Aggregate
Adverse
Rate
Centile Centile Indicator
Undersirable
Rate
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
Yes
Low
Low
4.05
0.64
0.81
0.28
Dimension of
Quality
EQuIP5
Criterion
6.70
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
0.66
Continuity of Care,
Appropriateness,
1.1.1, 1.1.2,
Effectiveness,
1.1.4, 1.3.1,
Outcome
Quality
1.4.1, 2.1.3
Improvement and
Risk
47