Patient Experience Shows Little Relationship with Hospital Quality Management Strategies.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported experience measures are increasingly being used to routinely monitor the quality of care. With the increasing attention on such measures, hospital managers seek ways to systematically improve patient experience across hospital departments, in particular where outcomes are used for public reporting or reimbursement. However, it is currently unclear whether hospitals with more mature quality management systems or stronger focus on patient involvement and patient-centered care strategies perform better on patient-reported experience. We assessed the effect of such strategies on a range of patient-reported experience measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional, multi-level study design randomly recruiting hospitals from the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey between May 2011 and January 2012. Each hospital contributed patient level data for four conditions/pathways: acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries. The outcome variables in this study were a set of patient-reported experience measures including a generic 6-item measure of patient experience (NORPEQ), a 3-item measure of patient-perceived discharge preparation (Health Care Transition Measure) and two single item measures of perceived involvement in care and hospital recommendation. Predictor variables included three hospital management strategies: maturity of the hospital quality management system, patient involvement in quality management functions and patient-centered care strategies. We used directed acyclic graphs to detail and guide the modeling of the complex relationships between predictor variables and outcome variables, and fitted multivariable linear mixed models with random intercept by hospital, and adjusted for fixed effects at the country level, hospital level and patient level. RESULTS: Overall, 74 hospitals and 276 hospital departments contributed data on 6,536 patients to this study (acute myocardial infarction n = 1,379, hip fracture n = 1,503, deliveries n = 2,088, stroke n = 1,566). Patients admitted for hip fracture and stroke had the lowest scores across the four patient-reported experience measures throughout. Patients admitted after acute myocardial infarction reported highest scores on patient experience and hospital recommendation; women after delivery reported highest scores for patient involvement and health care transition. We found no substantial associations between hospital-wide quality management strategies, patient involvement in quality management, or patient-centered care strategies with any of the patient-reported experience measures. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study so far to assess the complex relationship between quality management strategies and patient experience with care. Our findings suggest absence of and wide variations in the institutionalization of strategies to engage patients in quality management, or implement strategies to improve patient-centeredness of care. Seemingly counterintuitive inverse associations could be capturing a scenario where hospitals with poorer quality management were beginning to improve their patient experience. The former suggests that patient-centered care is not yet sufficiently integrated in quality management, while the latter warrants a nuanced assessment of the motivation and impact of involving patients in the design and assessment of services

Implementation of Departmental Quality Strategies Is Positively Associated with Clinical Practice: Results of a Multicenter Study in 73 Hospitals in 7 European Countries.

BACKGROUND: Given the amount of time and resources invested in implementing quality programs in hospitals, few studies have investigated their clinical impact and what strategies could be recommended to enhance its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in clinical practice and explore associations with hospital- and department-level quality management systems. DESIGN: Multicenter, multilevel cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-three acute care hospitals with 276 departments managing acute myocardial infarction, deliveries, hip fracture, and stroke in seven countries. INTERVENTION: None. MEASURES: Predictor variables included 3 hospital- and 4 department-level quality measures. Six measures were collected through direct observation by an external surveyor and one was assessed through a questionnaire completed by hospital quality managers. Dependent variables included 24 clinical practice indicators based on case note reviews covering the 4 conditions (acute myocardial infarction, deliveries, hip fracture and stroke). A directed acyclic graph was used to encode relationships between predictors, outcomes, and covariates and to guide the choice of covariates to control for confounding. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Data were provided on 9021 clinical records by 276 departments in 73 hospitals. There were substantial variations in compliance with the 24 clinical practice indicators. Weak associations were observed between hospital quality systems and 4 of the 24 indicators, but on analyzing department-level quality systems, strong associations were observed for 8 of the 11 indicators for acute myocardial infarction and stroke. Clinical indicators supported by higher levels of evidence were more frequently associated with quality systems and activities. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant gaps between recommended standards of care and clinical practice in a large sample of hospitals. Implementation of department-level quality strategies was significantly associated with good clinical practice. Further research should aim to develop clinically relevant quality standards for hospital departments, which appear to be more effective than generic hospital-wide quality systems

Comparison of health care costs and resource utilization for commonly used proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-based triplet regimens for the management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-3,813; P &lt; 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P &lt; 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P &lt; 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda

Involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management functions in EU hospitals:implementation and impact on patient-centred care strategies

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, multilevel STUDY DESIGN: that surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit. SETTING: Randomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). PARTICIPANTS: Hospital quality managers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level. RESULTS: Current levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect

Involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management functions in EU hospitals : Implementation and impact on patient-centred care strategies

The study, "Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 241822. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 241822.Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies. Design: A cross-sectional, multilevel study design that surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit. Setting: Randomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). Participants: Hospital qualitymanagers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012. Main Outcome Measures: Four items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level. Results: Current levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect

Is having quality as an item on the executive board agenda associated with the implementation of quality management systems in European hospitals: a quantitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there is a relationship between having quality as an item on the board's agenda, perceived external pressure (PEP) and the implementation of quality management in European hospitals. DESIGN: A quantitative, mixed method, cross-sectional study in seven European countries in 2011 surveying CEOs and quality managers and data from onsite audits. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty-five CEOs and 155 quality managers. SETTING: One hundred and fifty-five randomly selected acute care hospitals in seven European countries (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). Main outcome measure(s) Three constructs reflecting quality management based on questionnaire and audit data: (i) Quality Management System Index, (ii) Quality Management Compliance Index and (iii) Clinical Quality Implementation Index. The main predictor was whether quality performance was on the executive board's agenda. RESULTS: Discussing quality performance at executive board meetings more often was associated with a higher quality management system score (regression coefficient b = 2.53; SE = 1.16; P = 0.030). We found a trend in the associations of discussing quality performance with quality compliance and clinical quality implementation. PEP did not modify these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Having quality as an item on the executive board's agenda allows them to review and discuss quality performance more often in order to improve their hospital's quality management. Generally, and as this study found, having quality on the executive board's agenda matters

Multiply Robust Estimation: The Development and Evaluation of a Novel Method for Causal Analysis

Correct model specification for confounding control is likely the most common assumption made in causal inference. Yet the validity of this assumption cannot be verified using data or statistical tests. Typically, investigators collect as much data on confounders as possible and then consider multiple models singly. This is a tedious process, thus making multiply robust estimation, an extension of doubly robust estimation, particularly appealing as it affords investigators with more than two chances to specify a correct model within a union model, obviating multiple results presentation. This dissertation introduces a multiply robust approach that combines three or more estimators in one union model, yielding unbiased effect estimates provided at least one of the estimators is correctly specified, no new bias is introduced, and there is no uncontrolled confounding. This dissertation focuses on the development and evaluation of multiply robust estimation in single and multilevel models and in the presence of effect modification and interaction. Monte Carlo simulations are used to assess performance and present a proof of concept, and illustrative examples based on global health data will be used to demonstrate applications of the MR estimation method. A framework for doubly and multiply robust estimators is also presented using directed acyclic graphs to show how multiple adjustment schemes can be combined to yield a consistent effect estimate. Interpretation of doubly robust and multiply robust estimates is also discussed, and it is proposed that a partial-marginal and partial-conditional framework for interpretation is necessary. Results showed that effect estimates for the exposure(s) of interest obtained using MR estimation had higher chances of being valid, or robust to misspecification, whenever at least one of the underlying estimators was not misspecified. This approach allows investigators who disagree about appropriate covariate adjustment schemes to merge their views and obtain a single set of results without forcing them to agree on one model. Although the assumption of correct model specification cannot be verified, multiply robust estimation nevertheless pools opportunities by specifying more than two estimators in one union model in an attempt to hedge a bet on consistently getting a valid effect estimate

Removal of ineligible outcome cases reduces confounding

Background: When an exclusionary criterion is an imperfect screen, some ineligible patients will remain in a study. Medical record review for outcome adjudication can reveal such individuals. Objective: To ascertain the circumstances under which it is advisable to remove outcome cases first found to be ineligible on chart review. Methods: The impact on the relative risk caused by removal of ineligible outcome cases was examined under different circumstances of confounding, prevalence, and efficacy of the screening criterion for exclusions. The result is illustrated by a hospital-based cohort study in which electronic medical record diagnosis served to exclude ineligible cases, and review of text notes for putative outcome cases revealed that the codes were only 95% sensitive. Other hypothetical scenarios provide further evidence. Results: If a condition to be excluded is a confounder of the exposure–outcome relation, residual confounding will continue to bias a study after application of an imperfect screening criterion. Removal of ineligible outcome cases after chart review creates a new bias, distinct from residual confounding. The new bias does not depend on the magnitude of the confounder–outcome association, and will be small if the exclusion criterion has resulted in a low prevalence of the exclusionary condition. The new bias caused by removal of ineligible outcome cases is almost certain to be smaller than the confounding bias that can result if they are retained. Conclusions: Outcome cases first discovered at chart review to be study-ineligible should be removed from the study, even when similar scrutiny is infeasible for non-cases

Predictors of chemoradiotherapy versus single modality therapy and overall survival among patients with unresectable, stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION:Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) was the standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) prior to the PACIFIC trial, however, patients also received single modality therapy. This study identified predictors of therapy and differences in overall survival (OS). METHODS:This retrospective study included stage III NSCLC patients aged ≥65 years, with ≥1 claim for systemic therapy (ST) or radiotherapy (RT) within 90 days of diagnosis, identified in SEER-Medicare data (2009-2014). Patients who had overlapping claims for chemotherapy and RT ≤90 days from start of therapy were classified as having received cCRT. Patients who received sequential CRT or surgical resection of tumor were excluded. Predictors of cCRT were analyzed using logistic regression. OS was compared between therapies using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS:Of 3,799 patients identified, 21.7% received ST; 26.3% received RT; and 52.0% received cCRT. cCRT patients tended to be younger (p <0.001), White (p = 0.002), and have a good predicted performance status (p<0.001). Patients who saw all three specialist types (medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, and surgeon) had increased odds of receiving cCRT (p<0.001). ST and RT patients had higher mortality risk versus cCRT patients (hazard ratio [95% CI]: ST: 1.38 [1.26-1.51]; RT: 1.75 [1.61, 1.91]); p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Several factors contributed to treatment selection, including patient age and health status, and whether the patient received multidisciplinary care. Given the survival benefit of receiving cCRT over single-modality therapy, physicians should discuss treatment within a multidisciplinary team, and be encouraged to pursue cCRT for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC