Defining and Measuring Successful Emergency Care Networks: A Research Agenda

The demands on emergency services have grown relentlessly, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has asserted the need for “regionalized, coordinated, and accountable emergency care systems throughout the country.” There are large gaps in the evidence base needed to fix the problem of how emergency care is organized and delivered, and science is urgently needed to define and measure success in the emerging network of emergency care. In 2010, Academic Emergency Medicine convened a consensus conference entitled “Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care.” This article is a product of the conference breakout session on “Defining and Measuring Successful Networks”; it explores the concept of integrated emergency care delivery and prioritizes a research agenda for how to best define and measure successful networks of emergency care. The authors discuss five key areas: 1) the fundamental metrics that are needed to measure networks across time-sensitive and non–time-sensitive conditions; 2) how networks can be scalable and nimble and can be creative in terms of best practices; 3) the potential unintended consequences of networks of emergency care; 4) the development of large-scale, yet feasible, network data systems; and 5) the linkage of data systems across the disease course. These knowledge gaps must be filled to improve the quality and efficiency of emergency care and to fulfill the IOM’s vision of regionalized, coordinated, and accountable emergency care systems.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1297–1305 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79228/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00930.x.pd

QUERI and implementation research: Emerging from adolescence into adulthood: QUERI Series

The Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) program and implementation research have both come of age in the 10 years since QUERI was established. Looking forward, if QUERI and the field of implementation science are to mature successfully, we will need to address a series of challenges. First, we need to more clearly demonstrate how applying principles of implementation science leads to more effective implementation and communicate those lessons to our partners and funders. Second, we will need to engage in the ongoing debate over methodological standards in quality improvement and implementation research. Third, a program like QUERI needs to become more relevant to the daily decisions of key stakeholders. Fourth, if we hope to sustain interest in implementation science, we will need to demonstrate the business case for more effective implementation. Fifth, we need to think creatively about how to nurture the next generations of implementation researchers and front-line "connectors," who are critical for accelerating implementation. Finally, we need to strengthen the connections between implementation research and the other operational and research activities that influence change in healthcare systems

Disclosure, Apology, and Offer Programs: Stakeholders’ Views of Barriers to and Strategies for Broad Implementation

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94445/1/j.1468-0009.2012.00679.x.pd

A Review of Risk Matrices Used in Acute Hospitals in England.

In healthcare, patient safety has received substantial attention and, in turn, a number of approaches to managing safety have been adopted from other high-risk industries. One of these has been risk assessment, predominantly through the use of risk matrices. However, while other industries have criticized the design and use of these risk matrices, the applicability of such criticism has not been investigated formally in healthcare. This study examines risk matrices as used in acute hospitals in England and the guidance provided for their use. It investigates the applicability of criticisms of risk matrices from outside healthcare through a document analysis of the risk assessment policies, procedures, and strategies used in English hospitals. The findings reveal that there is a large variety of risk matrices used, where the design of some might increase the chance of risk misprioritization. Additionally, findings show that hospitals may provide insufficient guidance on how to use risk matrices as well as what to do in response to the existing criticisms of risk matrices. Consequently, this is likely to lead to variation in the quality of risk assessment and in the subsequent deployment of resources to manage the assessed risk. Finally, the article outlines ways in which hospitals could use risk matrices more effectively

Policy challenges for the pediatric rheumatology workforce: Part II. Health care system delivery and workforce supply

The United States pediatric population with chronic health conditions is expanding. Currently, this demographic comprises 12-18% of the American child and youth population. Affected children often receive fragmented, uncoordinated care. Overall, the American health care delivery system produces modest outcomes for this population. Poor, uninsured and minority children may be at increased risk for inferior coordination of services. Further, the United States health care delivery system is primarily organized for the diagnosis and treatment of acute conditions. For pediatric patients with chronic health conditions, the typical acute problem-oriented visit actually serves as a barrier to care. The biomedical model of patient education prevails, characterized by unilateral transfer of medical information. However, the evidence basis for improvement in disease outcomes supports the use of the chronic care model, initially proposed by Dr. Edward Wagner. Six inter-related elements distinguish the success of the chronic care model, which include self-management support and care coordination by a prepared, proactive team

Integrated Personal Health Records: Transformative Tools for Consumer-Centric Care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Integrated personal health records (PHRs) offer significant potential to stimulate transformational changes in health care delivery and self-care by patients. In 2006, an invitational roundtable sponsored by Kaiser Permanente Institute, the American Medical Informatics Association, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was held to identify the transformative potential of PHRs, as well as barriers to realizing this potential and a framework for action to move them closer to the health care mainstream. This paper highlights and builds on the insights shared during the roundtable.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>While there is a spectrum of dominant PHR models, (standalone, tethered, integrated), the authors state that only the integrated model has true transformative potential to strengthen consumers' ability to manage their own health care. Integrated PHRs improve the quality, completeness, depth, and accessibility of health information provided by patients; enable facile communication between patients and providers; provide access to health knowledge for patients; ensure portability of medical records and other personal health information; and incorporate auto-population of content. Numerous factors impede widespread adoption of integrated PHRs: obstacles in the health care system/culture; issues of consumer confidence and trust; lack of technical standards for interoperability; lack of HIT infrastructure; the digital divide; uncertain value realization/ROI; and uncertain market demand. Recent efforts have led to progress on standards for integrated PHRs, and government agencies and private companies are offering different models to consumers, but substantial obstacles remain to be addressed. Immediate steps to advance integrated PHRs should include sharing existing knowledge and expanding knowledge about them, building on existing efforts, and continuing dialogue among public and private sector stakeholders.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Integrated PHRs promote active, ongoing patient collaboration in care delivery and decision making. With some exceptions, however, the integrated PHR model is still a theoretical framework for consumer-centric health care. The authors pose questions that need to be answered so that the field can move forward to realize the potential of integrated PHRs. How can integrated PHRs be moved from concept to practical application? Would a coordinating body expedite this progress? How can existing initiatives and policy levers serve as catalysts to advance integrated PHRs?</p

Developing new ways of measuring the quality and impact of ambulance service care: the PhOEBE mixed-methods research programme

Background Ambulance service quality measures have focused on response times and a small number of emergency conditions, such as cardiac arrest. These quality measures do not reflect the care for the wide range of problems that ambulance services respond to and the Prehospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) programme sought to address this. Objectives The aim was to develop new ways of measuring the impact of ambulance service care by reviewing and synthesising literature on prehospital ambulance outcome measures and using consensus methods to identify measures for further development; creating a data set linking routinely collected ambulance service, hospital and mortality data; and using the linked data to explore the development of case-mix adjustment models to assess differences or changes in processes and outcomes resulting from ambulance service care. Design A mixed-methods study using a systematic review and synthesis of performance and outcome measures reported in policy and research literature; qualitative interviews with ambulance service users; a three-stage consensus process to identify candidate indicators; the creation of a data set linking ambulance, hospital and mortality data; and statistical modelling of the linked data set to produce novel case-mix adjustment measures of ambulance service quality. Setting East Midlands and Yorkshire, England. Participants Ambulance services, patients, public, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policy-makers between 2011 and 2015. Interventions None. Main outcome measures Ambulance performance and quality measures. Data sources Ambulance call-and-dispatch and electronic patient report forms, Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency and inpatient data, and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Results Seventy-two candidate measures were generated from systematic reviews in four categories: (1) ambulance service operations (n = 14), (2) clinical management of patients (n = 20), (3) impact of care on patients (n = 9) and (4) time measures (n = 29). The most common operations measures were call triage accuracy; clinical management was adherence to care protocols, and for patient outcome it was survival measures. Excluding time measures, nine measures were highly prioritised by participants taking part in the consensus event, including measures relating to pain, patient experience, accuracy of dispatch decisions and patient safety. Twenty experts participated in two Delphi rounds to refine and prioritise measures and 20 measures scored ≥ 8/9 points, which indicated good consensus. Eighteen patient and public representatives attending a consensus workshop identified six measures as important: time to definitive care, response time, reduction in pain score, calls correctly prioritised to appropriate levels of response, proportion of patients with a specific condition who are treated in accordance with established guidelines, and survival to hospital discharge for treatable emergency conditions. From this we developed six new potential indicators using the linked data set, of which five were constructed using case-mix-adjusted predictive models: (1) mean change in pain score; (2) proportion of serious emergency conditions correctly identified at the time of the 999 call; (3) response time (unadjusted); (4) proportion of decisions to leave a patient at scene that were potentially inappropriate; (5) proportion of patients transported to the emergency department by 999 emergency ambulance who did not require treatment or investigation(s); and (6) proportion of ambulance patients with a serious emergency condition who survive to admission, and to 7 days post admission. Two indicators (pain score and response times) did not need case-mix adjustment. Among the four adjusted indicators, we found that accuracy of call triage was 61%, rate of potentially inappropriate decisions to leave at home was 5–10%, unnecessary transport to hospital was 1.7–19.2% and survival to hospital admission was 89.5–96.4% depending on Clinical Commissioning Group area. We were unable to complete a fourth objective to test the indicators in use because of delays in obtaining data. An economic analysis using indicators (4) and (5) showed that incorrect decisions resulted in higher costs. Limitations Creation of a linked data set was complex and time-consuming and data quality was variable. Construction of the indicators was also complex and revealed the effects of other services on outcome, which limits comparisons between services. Conclusions We identified and prioritised, through consensus processes, a set of potential ambulance service quality measures that reflected preferences of services and users. Together, these encompass a broad range of domains relevant to the population using the emergency ambulance service. The quality measures can be used to compare ambulance services or regions or measure performance over time if there are improvements in mechanisms for linking data across services. Future work The new measures can be used to assess different dimensions of ambulance service delivery but current data challenges prohibit routine use. There are opportunities to improve data linkage processes and to further develop, validate and simplify these measures. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme