Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The objective of the systematic review is to examine and summarise the available evidence in the literature of the use of key performance indicators (KPIs) to inform evaluation of wound care programmes and services for people with hard-to-heal (complex) wounds. The need for wound care is expected to grow with the continued ageing of the population and the resulting increased development of chronic conditions. This expected increase necessitates improvement of wound care programmes and services and their ability to deliver quality, evidence-based and cost-effective practice. The current literature lacks a systematic assessment of KPIs to inform evaluation of wound care services and programmes across various settings, and how the KPIs are used to improve the quality of wound care and achieve desired outcomes. This protocol sets out how the systemtic review will be undertaken.
UNASSIGNED: Primary studies will be screened from databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus, with unpublished studies and grey literature retrieved from Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The study titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers, using Covidence systematic review software to ensure they meet the inclusion criteria, who will then proceed with data extraction of the full-text using the standardised data extraction instrument. The reference lists of all studies selected for critical appraisal will be screened for additional publications. The two independent reviewers will critically appraise all studies undergoing full-text data extraction using the appropriate checklist from JBI SUMARI. At all stages, differences between reviewers will be resolved through discussion, with adjudication by a third, independent reviewer.
UNASSIGNED: Data points will be analysed with descriptive statistics and grouped, based on programme characteristics and publication status. Grey literature and peer-reviewed publications will form separate analyses. To answer review questions, the data will be summarised in a narrative format. A meta-analysis is not planned. At the time of writing, this protocol has been implemented up to the preliminary literature search.
UNASSIGNED: This review will address a current literature gap and systematically identify KPIs in wound care, allowing for programmes to evaluate their quality of care and improve their services in a methodical manner.
UNASSIGNED: Primary studies will be screened from databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus, with unpublished studies and grey literature retrieved from Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The study titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers, using Covidence systematic review software to ensure they meet the inclusion criteria, who will then proceed with data extraction of the full-text using the standardised data extraction instrument. The reference lists of all studies selected for critical appraisal will be screened for additional publications. The two independent reviewers will critically appraise all studies undergoing full-text data extraction using the appropriate checklist from JBI SUMARI. At all stages, differences between reviewers will be resolved through discussion, with adjudication by a third, independent reviewer.
UNASSIGNED: Data points will be analysed with descriptive statistics and grouped, based on programme characteristics and publication status. Grey literature and peer-reviewed publications will form separate analyses. To answer review questions, the data will be summarised in a narrative format. A meta-analysis is not planned. At the time of writing, this protocol has been implemented up to the preliminary literature search.
UNASSIGNED: This review will address a current literature gap and systematically identify KPIs in wound care, allowing for programmes to evaluate their quality of care and improve their services in a methodical manner.
摘要：
系统评价的目的是检查和总结文献中关于使用关键绩效指标（KPI）来评估难以愈合（复杂）伤口患者的伤口护理计划和服务的现有证据。随着人口的持续老龄化和由此导致的慢性病症的发展,预期对伤口护理的需求将增长。这种预期的增长需要改善伤口护理计划和服务及其提供质量的能力，基于证据和成本效益的做法。目前的文献缺乏对KPI的系统评估，无法为评估各种环境中的伤口护理服务和计划提供信息。以及如何使用KPI来提高伤口护理质量并达到预期效果。该协议规定了如何进行系统审查。
■将从MEDLINE、CINAHL和Scopus,从Google学者和ProQuest论文和论文中检索到未发表的研究和灰色文献。研究标题和摘要将由两名独立审稿人筛选，使用Covidence系统审查软件确保他们符合纳入标准，然后，谁将使用标准化数据提取工具进行全文的数据提取。将筛选用于关键评估的所有研究的参考列表，以查找其他出版物。两位独立审稿人将使用JBISUMARI的适当清单批判性地评估所有正在进行全文数据提取的研究。在所有阶段,审稿人之间的分歧将通过讨论解决，通过三分之一的裁决，独立审稿人。
■将对数据点进行描述性统计和分组分析，根据节目特点和出版状况。灰色文献和同行评审的出版物将形成单独的分析。要回答复习问题，数据将以叙述格式汇总。没有计划进行荟萃分析。在撰写本文时,该协议已实施到初步文献检索。
■这篇综述将解决当前的文献空白，并系统地确定伤口护理中的KPI，允许计划评估其护理质量并有条不紊地改善服务。
■将从MEDLINE、CINAHL和Scopus,从Google学者和ProQuest论文和论文中检索到未发表的研究和灰色文献。研究标题和摘要将由两名独立审稿人筛选，使用Covidence系统审查软件确保他们符合纳入标准，然后，谁将使用标准化数据提取工具进行全文的数据提取。将筛选用于关键评估的所有研究的参考列表，以查找其他出版物。两位独立审稿人将使用JBISUMARI的适当清单批判性地评估所有正在进行全文数据提取的研究。在所有阶段,审稿人之间的分歧将通过讨论解决，通过三分之一的裁决，独立审稿人。
■将对数据点进行描述性统计和分组分析，根据节目特点和出版状况。灰色文献和同行评审的出版物将形成单独的分析。要回答复习问题，数据将以叙述格式汇总。没有计划进行荟萃分析。在撰写本文时,该协议已实施到初步文献检索。
■这篇综述将解决当前的文献空白，并系统地确定伤口护理中的KPI，允许计划评估其护理质量并有条不紊地改善服务。
