Table 4 Methodological assessment of the QI sets with AIRE tool
From: Evidence for publicly reported quality indicators in residential long-term care: a systematic review
AIRE Domain | US | CA | NZ | AU | BE | NL | NO | SE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domain 1: Purpose, relevance and organizational context | ||||||||
 1.The purpose of the indicator is described clearly | 98% | 96% | 71% | 89% | 93% | 78% | 100% | 87% |
 2. The criteria for selecting the topic of the indicator are described in detail | ||||||||
 3.The organizational context of the indicator is described in detail | ||||||||
 4.The quality domain the indicator addresses is described in detail | ||||||||
 5.The health-care process covered by the indicator is described and defined in detail | ||||||||
Domain 2: Stakeholder Involvement | ||||||||
 6. The group developing the indicator includes individuals from relevant professional groups | 96% | 100% | 93% | 100% | 100% | 74% | 41% | 56% |
 7. Considering the purpose of the indicator, all relevant stakeholders have been involved at some stage of the development process | ||||||||
 8. The indicator has been formally endorsed | ||||||||
Domain 3: Scientific evidence | ||||||||
 9. Systematic methods were used to search for scientific evidence | 0–7% | 11–33% | 0% | 52–56% | 0–26% | 0–15% | 4% | 0–7% |
 10. The indicator is based on recommendations from an evidence-based guideline or studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals | ||||||||
 11. The supporting evidence has been critically appraised | ||||||||
Domain 4: Additional evidence, formulation and usage | ||||||||
 12. The numerator and denominator are described in detail | 44–68% | 33–60% | 33–52% | 52–58% | 38–39% | 18–32% | 31–32% | 30–41% |
 13. The target patient population of the indicator is defined clearly | ||||||||
 14. A strategy for risk adjustment has been considered and described | ||||||||
 15. The indicator measures what it is intended to measure | ||||||||
 16. The indicator measures accurately and consistently | ||||||||
 17. The indicator has sufficient discriminative power | ||||||||
 18. The indicator has been piloted in practice | ||||||||
 19. The efforts needed for data collection have been considered | ||||||||
 20. Specific instructions for presenting and interpreting the indicator results are provided | ||||||||