The Effect of Performance-Based Financial Incentives on Improving Patient Care Experiences: A Statewide Evaluation

Patient experience measures are central to many pay-for-performance (P4P) programs nationally, but the effect of performance-based financial incentives on improving patient care experiences has not been assessed. The study uses Clinician & Group CAHPS data from commercially insured adult patients (n = 124,021) who had visits with 1,444 primary care physicians from 25 California medical groups between 2003 and 2006. Medical directors were interviewed to assess the magnitude and nature of financial incentives directed at individual physicians and the patient experience improvement activities adopted by groups. Multilevel regression models were used to assess the relationship between performance change on patient care experience measures and medical group characteristics, financial incentives, and performance improvement activities. Over the course of the study period, physicians improved performance on the physician-patient communication (0.62 point annual increase, p < 0.001), care coordination (0.48 point annual increase, p < 0.001), and office staff interaction (0.22 point annual increase, p = 0.02) measures. Physicians with lower baseline performance on patient experience measures experienced larger improvements (p < 0.001). Greater emphasis on clinical quality and patient experience criteria in individual physician incentive formulas was associated with larger improvements on the care coordination (p < 0.01) and office staff interaction (p < 0.01) measures. By contrast, greater emphasis on productivity and efficiency criteria was associated with declines in performance on the physician communication (p < 0.01) and office staff interaction (p < 0.001) composites. In the context of statewide measurement, reporting, and performance-based financial incentives, patient care experiences significantly improved. In order to promote patient-centered care in pay for performance and public reporting programs, the mechanisms by which program features influence performance improvement should be clarified

Improving benchmarking by using an explicit framework for the development of composite indicators: an example using pediatric quality of care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The measurement of healthcare provider performance is becoming more widespread. Physicians have been guarded about performance measurement, in part because the methodology for comparative measurement of care quality is underdeveloped. Comprehensive quality improvement will require comprehensive measurement, implying the aggregation of multiple quality metrics into composite indicators.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To present a conceptual framework to develop comprehensive, robust, and transparent composite indicators of pediatric care quality, and to highlight aspects specific to quality measurement in children.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed the scientific literature on composite indicator development, health systems, and quality measurement in the pediatric healthcare setting. Frameworks were selected for explicitness and applicability to a hospital-based measurement system.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We synthesized various frameworks into a comprehensive model for the development of composite indicators of quality of care. Among its key premises, the model proposes identifying structural, process, and outcome metrics for each of the Institute of Medicine's six domains of quality (safety, effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, timeliness, and equity) and presents a step-by-step framework for embedding the quality of care measurement model into composite indicator development.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The framework presented offers researchers an explicit path to composite indicator development. Without a scientifically robust and comprehensive approach to measurement of the quality of healthcare, performance measurement will ultimately fail to achieve its quality improvement goals.</p

Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pay-for-performance (P4P) is one of the primary tools used to support healthcare delivery reform. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the development and implementation of P4P in health care and its effects. This paper summarizes evidence, obtained from studies published between January 1990 and July 2009, concerning P4P effects, as well as evidence on the impact of design choices and contextual mediators on these effects. Effect domains include clinical effectiveness, access and equity, coordination and continuity, patient-centeredness, and cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic review made use of electronic database searching, reference screening, forward citation tracking and expert consultation. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluate P4P effects in primary care or acute hospital care medicine were included. Papers concerning other target groups or settings, having no empirical evaluation design or not complying with the P4P definition were excluded. According to study design nine validated quality appraisal tools and reporting statements were applied. Data were extracted and summarized into evidence tables independently by two reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence -to be interpreted with caution- concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care. However, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found. P4P effects can be judged to be encouraging or disappointing, depending on the primary mission of the P4P program: supporting minimal quality standards and/or boosting quality improvement. Moreover, the effects of P4P interventions varied according to design choices and characteristics of the context in which it was introduced.</p> <p>Future P4P programs should (1) select and define P4P targets on the basis of baseline room for improvement, (2) make use of process and (intermediary) outcome indicators as target measures, (3) involve stakeholders and communicate information about the programs thoroughly and directly, (4) implement a uniform P4P design across payers, (5) focus on both quality improvement and achievement, and (6) distribute incentives to the individual and/or team level.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>P4P programs result in the full spectrum of possible effects for specific targets, from absent or negligible to strongly beneficial. Based on the evidence the review has provided further indications on how effect findings are likely to relate to P4P design choices and context. The provided best practice hypotheses should be tested in future research.</p

What is the value and impact of quality and safety teams? A scoping review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature about the establishment and impact of quality and safety team initiatives in acute care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Studies were identified through electronic searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ABI Inform, Cochrane databases. Grey literature and bibliographies were also searched. Qualitative or quantitative studies that occurred in acute care, describing how quality and safety teams were established or implemented, the impact of teams, or the barriers and/or facilitators of teams were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study design, sample, interventions, and outcomes. Quality assessment of full text articles was done independently by two reviewers. Studies were categorized according to dimensions of quality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 6,674 articles identified, 99 were included in the study. The heterogeneity of studies and results reported precluded quantitative data analyses. Findings revealed limited information about attributes of successful and unsuccessful team initiatives, barriers and facilitators to team initiatives, unique or combined contribution of selected interventions, or how to effectively establish these teams.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Not unlike systematic reviews of quality improvement collaboratives, this broad review revealed that while teams reported a number of positive results, there are many methodological issues. This study is unique in utilizing traditional quality assessment and more novel methods of quality assessment and reporting of results (SQUIRE) to appraise studies. Rigorous design, evaluation, and reporting of quality and safety team initiatives are required.</p

Prescribing Data in General Practice Demonstration (PDGPD) project - a cluster randomised controlled trial of a quality improvement intervention to achieve better prescribing for chronic heart failure and hypertension

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/12/273 Extent: 11p.Background: Research literature consistently documents that scientifically based therapeutic recommendations are not always followed in the hospital or in the primary care setting. Currently, there is evidence that some general practitioners in Australia are not prescribing appropriately for patients diagnosed with 1) hypertension (HT) and 2) chronic heart failure (CHF). The objectives of this study were to improve general practitioner’s drug treatment management of these patients through feedback on their own prescribing and small group discussions with peers and a trained group facilitator. The impact evaluation includes quantitative assessment of prescribing changes at 6, 9, 12 and 18 months after the intervention. Methods: A pragmatic multi site cluster RCT began recruiting practices in October 2009 to evaluate the effects of a multi-faceted quality improvement (QI) intervention on prescribing practice among Australian general practitioners (GP) in relation to patients with CHF and HT. General practices were recruited nationally through General Practice Networks across Australia. Participating practices were randomly allocated to one of three groups: two groups received the QI intervention (the prescribing indicator feedback reports and small group discussion) with each group undertaking the clinical topics (CHF and HT) in reverse order to the other. The third group was waitlisted to receive the intervention 6 months later and acted as a "control" for the other two groups. De-identified data on practice, doctor and patient characteristics and their treatment for CHF and HT are extracted at six-monthly intervals before and after the intervention. Post-test comparisons will be conducted between the intervention and control arms using intention to treat analysis and models that account for clustering of practices in a Network and clustering of patients within practices and GPs. Discussion: This paper describes the study protocol for a project that will contribute to the development of acceptable and sustainable methods to promote QI activities within routine general practice, enhance prescribing practices and improve patient outcomes in the context of CHF and HT. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Trial # 320870.Margaret Williamson, Magnolia Cardona-Morrell, Jeffrey D Elliott, James F Reeve, Nigel P Stocks, Jon Emery, Judith M Mackson and Jane M Gun